For more than 20 years, the copyright industry, the public, and others involved in creating and preserving works have followed the Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios case which “found that a distributor cannot be held liable for users' infringement so long as the tool is capable of substantial non-infringing uses” (under the Ninth Circuit).  Meaning that as long as the technology is capable of performing techniques that do not infringe any copyright laws, the distributor cannot be held responsible for what users do.  On the other hand, if a device was sole purpose was to perform illegal procedures, the distributor could in fact be held, at least somewhat, responsible.  Therefore, when the case of MGM v. Grokster was brought to court, official had to follow the example.  In this specific case, “twenty-eight of the world's largest entertainment companies brought the lawsuit against the makers of the Morpheus, Grokster, and KaZaA software products, aiming to set a precedent to use against other technology companies (P2P and otherwise).”  Interestingly, the court sided with StreamCast Networks, “the company behind the Morpheus peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software,” thus not giving Hollywood what they “wanted – a veto over technological innovation.” 

            The ever changing technology and subsequent copyright laws are seriously affecting producers, consumers, and the market. Many of these cases are so technical and delicate, that it has become inevitable that someone is going to be unhappy with the outcome.  The trick for copyright officials is to try and set some standard that applies to all devices, all copyright infringements, and all users and distributors. In an ideal world, this could all be possible.  In the meantime, everyone involved must work with what they are given and find a way to revive the media industry against copyright pirates. 

    There are many “legal issues facing copyright holders of television shows whose product is available online through modern peer-to-peer networks.”  In the instance there is a copyright infringement in peer-to-peer file sharing, court cases are left to determine whether or not the fair use policy is applicable.  It has been suggested that the fair use argument depends “on whether the end user downloads for a private viewing experience or whether the end user downloads and extends the use beyond mere private viewing.”  In other words, the courts are responsible for determining whether the character of the television show has been changed from the original.  If, in fact, individuals are downloading television shows with the intention of using it for more than just “a private viewing experience,” then the fair use argument is much less valid.

            It is suggested that the television industry take as many anti-piracy precautions as possible, so to avoid the level of illegal downloading in the music industry. Though the fair use argument may prevail in some instances, the majority of copyright infringement and piracy cases cannot be explained by the fair use doctrine.  Therefore, copyright laws need to be updated to cover the technology that pirates are using to download their favorite television shows.  As the title suggests, individuals involved in these copyright cases need to prepare for the fact that the fair use argument does not work with television shows as well as it may with music.