Divergent visions for tech.
Samuelson 23 [Pamela; Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law, Co-Director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, and published widely in the areas of copyright, software protection and cyberlaw; 3/7/2023; "The Solicitor General's Mixed Record of Success in Supreme Court Copyright Cases"; University of California, Berkeley School of Law; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4381579 ;] s.low
In two high-profile twenty-first-century cases involving disruptive digital technologies, the Court’s analysis of technology developer liability for copyright infringement was significantly different than OSG’s, even though the Court ultimately agreed with OSG that the petitioners should prevail. One was Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 205 which considered whether developers of peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing technologies could be held indirectly liable for its users’ file-sharing copyright infringements. The second was American Broadcasting Corp. v. Aereo, Inc., 206 which considered a direct infringement claim against the maker of a technology enabling subscribers to watch broadcast television programs on their computers or mobile devices.
Had the Court adopted the petitioners’ and OSG’s arguments, developers of innovative technologies enabling users to access and enjoy digital content would have faced increased litigation risks. In both cases, amicus curiae briefs filed by major technology companies and public interest organizations warned the Court not to adopt the petitioners’ (and OSG’s) views about liability rules when copyright owners sue technology companies for direct or indirect infringement.207 In both cases, the Court heeded those warnings and issued narrower rulings than the petitioners sought and OSG recommended.