This article deals with peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing and the film industry.  The ninth circuit court ruled in the case of MGM v. Grokster.  The court ruled that some file sharing Internet services are not liable for copyright infringement committed by their users.  This is a big blow to both the music and film industries.  David Bell and Jeffery Sullivan acknowledge this decision as “legally correct,” but they are also aware of its implications for the entertainment industries.  The sellers of copying equipment are not liable for the use of the equipment in copyright infringement, as decided by the Supreme Court in Sony v. Universal.  Since Grokster and Streamcast were found to have substantially legitimate uses, they fell under the precedent set by the Sony case..  Next, MGM tried to prove vicarious copyright infringement through direct infringement by a primary party, direct financial benefit by the defendants and the ability of the defendants to supervise the users.  This was not proven because the relationship between software provider and user is decentralized and the software provider has no obligation to monitor the actions of its users.  This ruling was appealed. The appeal questions if the defendants are responsible for secondary copyright liability because of the large amount of infringement.  Here, Bell and Sullivan explain the standards for secondary liability.   They argue that the court was to narrow in its definitions for knowledge of infringement and contributions to primary infringement.  Next the article deals with pervious rulings on the case and the necessity of proving legitimate uses if one is to use the Sony verdict in its favor.  The article deals with if and how the Supreme Court should address and respond to this case. The next part of the article explains existing legislation.  It states that copyright holders cannot recover loses from secondary copyright infringement.  It also looks at cases of the record industry against Internet Service Providers, noting the protection of software companies and ISPs.   The article looks at the Induce act, which was brought up fro review recently and would make software companies liable for encouraging copyright infringement.  The article shows the pros and cons of this piece of legislation.  Other pieces of legislation brought up in the article are the Piracy Deterrence and Education Act, the Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act and the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act.  The article concludes with an explanation of the possible effects of the Supreme Court’s decision on the case.
    The article provides a detailed explanation and example of the copyright issues brought up by P2P technology.  There is a good analysis of the case as well as explanations and references to copyright law and how these issues are being dealt with outside of this specific instance.  The language is a little legal at times, but the article is very comprehensive and informative.