Yesterday, oral arguments were presented to the Supreme Court of the United States by the parties in MGM Studios v Grokster. There has been extensive news coverage of the appeal, which is important for a number of reasons — both legal and social. As the analysis begins to trickle in, I’ll post relevant links here:
- Summarising the Court’s reactions to submissions: US judges debate file-sharing, The Age newspaper, Australia
- Providing background about the respondent’s case: Grokster gains ally with deep pockets
- Good summary of the arguments put by both parties: Court conflicted over file-swapping
- First-hand observations and photos: Displaced final call, including a photo of a somewhat-bewildered Jack Valenti
- Comments from an EFF attorney: On the Steps of the Supreme Court
- Analysis of judicial reaction: Justices Ask the Right Questions in MGM v Grokster; see also Grokster: From the Courthouse Steps
- Detailed summary of submissions by a law student: A Few Notes from the Grokster Argument
- General observations: Evolving superficial thoughts and on-the-ground observations
- An unintended concession in argument: MGM says ripping MP3s is OK
The general consensus is that things went better than expected for the respondents (Grokster Ltd and others), with the Court evincing sensitivity to the effects upon technological innovation of any modifications to the Sony-Betamax standard. The final judgment is expected to be delivered in June 2005, and will — whatever its content — be likely to catalyse some form of legislative response and a great deal of further debate.
