Conclusie Verkade compleet genegeerd
Eindelijk uitspraak in de spraakmakende Grokster-zaak: U.S. Supreme Court komt met een nieuwe variant op de stelling dat de moord niet door het wapen, maar door degene die het wapen vasthoudt wordt gepleegd. Het gaat erom, concludeert het Hof, met welke intentie het wapen, i.c. de file-sharing software, wordt gepromoot en verhandeld. Bedrijven zoals Grokster, die zich overduidelijk richten op en economisch niet zouden kunnen overleven zonder inbreukmakende ruilhandel, maken zelf wel degelijk ook inbreuk op het auteursrecht op de geruilde werken. Wie goed doet, ontmoet nog altijd goed, maar doelbewust stimuleren en faciliteren van inbreuk is zelf dus ook inbreuk.
"In sum, this case is significantly different from Sony and reliance on that case to rule in favor of StreamCast and Grokster was error. Sony dealt with a claim of liability based solely on distributing a product with alternative lawful and unlawful uses, with knowledge that some users would follow the unlawful course. The case struck a balance between the interests of protection and innovation by holding that the product's capability of substantial lawful employment should bar the imputation of fault and consequent secondary liability for the unlawful acts of others.
MGM's evidence in this case most obviously addresses a different basis of liability for distributing a product open to alternative uses. Here, evidence of the distributors' words and deeds going beyond distribution as such shows a purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement. If liability for inducing infringement is ultimately found, it will not be on the basis of presuming or imputing fault, but from inferring a patently illegal objective from statements and actions showing what that objective was.
There is substantial evidence in MGM's favor on all elements of inducement, and summary judgment in favor of Grokster and StreamCast was error. On remand, reconsideration of MGM's motion for summary judgment will be in order. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Lees meer. Uitspraak hier.
