MGMvGroksterFinal

MGMvGroksterFinal - Name: Josh Tucker Student ID:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Name: Josh Tucker Student ID: 3108818894 POSC 130: Law, Politics, and Public Policy Section: Monday, 2:00-2:50pm Date: December 6, 2007 The Dynamic Case of MGM v. Grokster MGM Studios, Inc . v . Grokster, Inc . In the summer of 2000, Napster had well over 70 million users, the preponderance of whom used the peer-to-peer file-swapping network to illegally obtain copyrighted sound recordings by “sharing” music files with other users over the Internet (Strahilevitz). Napster was essentially shut down, as a free service, in 2001 because the company monitored the files its clients downloaded over a centralized server and therefore was held accountable for copyright infringement (Strahilevitz). The Constrained Court View vs. Dynamic Court View is an ongoing discussion about how the American courts function, and many scholars have debated whether this court case functions as constrained or dynamic. The Dynamic Court View suggests that the courts are very active and effective in making change, while the constrained court view implies the court doesn’t have the necessary policy and implementation resources that can affect significant reform (Rosenberg) . In 2005, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous verdict in the case determining that the suppliers of software designed to enable peer-to-peer “file sharing” of copyrighted works will be deemed legally responsible for the copyright . The MGM v. Grokster case ruling illustrates the Dynamic Court View, because the court acted proactively in creating social change to fill the void created by the progress of technology, failure of the legislature to provide adequate remedies, and the vague laws involved in the case .
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
It is imperative one understands the difference between the constrained and Dynamic Court Views helps one properly comprehend the dynamic decision made in MGM v. Grokster case . In his book, The Hollow Hope , Gerald Rosenberg examines both the constrained and Dynamic Court Views . The constrained court view implies strong cultural (limits on courts that stem from elite or public opinion), doctrinal (limits of the courts that derived from statues), and institutional (limits from how the courts are organized and how they interact with political factors) constraints (Rosenberg) . Furthermore, the CCV promotes the belief the elected branches are the boss having all the power with no constraints, and the courts are merely their agents . For example, the constrained court view in New York Subway Graffiti issue is the courts ruled that the graffiti was illegal but it was rarely enforced and the methods used to apprehend the offenders taught them how to work and not get caught (Rosenberg) . There is reluctance and resistance restraints on judicial power because the courts do not have the ability to put their rulings into practice . In direct opposition to the constrained court view is the Dynamic Court View,
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 11

MGMvGroksterFinal - Name: Josh Tucker Student ID:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online