web hit counter iMedia Decisions




iMedia Decisions

(in reverse chronological order)
CRIA File-sharing Lawsuits
  • In re Sony BMG CD Technologies Litigation, Dec. 28 2005 - Proposed Sony Rootkit Settlment Agreement.

  • UMA v. Sharman (Australian Kazaa Decision) (Federal Court of Australia - Sep 5, 2005) It was held that copyright is infringed by a person (in this case Sharman/Kazza) who, not being the owner of the copyright and without the licence of the copyright owner, authorizes (in this case by providing the Kazza peer-to-peer file sharing system) another person to do in Australia an infringing act (ie: copying/sharing copyrighted music through the Kazza platform).

  • MGM v. Grokster (U.S.S.C. - June 27, 2005) ("Grokster III"): Grokster is held to be contributorily liable for inducing/encouraging its users to directly infringe the copyright in content shared through the Grokster peer-to-peer file sharing network. Reversing :MGM v. Grokster (9th Cir CA, 380 F. 3d 1154 - August 19, 2004) ("Grokster II") and MGM v. Grokster (C.D. Cal, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 - April 25, 2003) ("Grokster I")

  • Ammerican Library Association, et. al v. FCC (USCA - DCC - May 6, 2005) FCC Broadcast Flag Overturned.

  • MGM v. Grokster (9th Cir CA, 380 F. 3d 1154 - August 19, 2004) ("Grokster II"); Grokster was not held liable for its users infringing the copyright in content shared through the Grokster peer-to-peer file sharing network. This decision affirmed MGM v. Grokster (C.D. Cal, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 - April 25, 2003) but was reversed by: MGM v. Grokster (U.S.S.C. - June 27, 2005)

  • MGM v. Grokster (C.D. Cal, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 - April 25, 2003) ("Grokster I"); affirmed by MGM v. Grokster (9th Cir CA, 380 F. 3d 1154 - August 19, 2004) but ultimately reversed by: MGM v. Grokster (U.S.S.C. - June 27, 2005)

  • A&M Records v. Napster (9th Cir CA - February 12, 2001) The decision that killed Napster. Napster was held to be secondarily liable for the direct copyright infringements of its users under two doctrines: contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement.

  • RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems (9th Cir CA - June 15, 1999) This seminal decision paved the way for the MP3 player revolution, and ultimately the iPod and legitimate music sales over-the-Internet. In this particular decision it was decided that the Rio is not a digital audio recording device subject to the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.

  • Sony v. Universal City Studios (U.S.S.C. - Jan 17, 1984 ) The seminal "fair use" decision where Sony was not held contributorily or vicariously liable for copyright infringement by its Betamax customers.