Issues of the Case

The main issue of this case is that people are getting copyrighted works such as software and music without paying for them. There is no doubt that these people have stolen the files, but the company that made the software has no control of what people share on the peer-to-peer network. The main factor that decided the case is did the company that provided the software advertise it for the use of copyright infringement. The Court held that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.” http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/index.html. if the company advertised that you can get music or software for free than they are liable for anything that their users do, if they did not advertise in any way then they might not be held responsible for infringing on the copyright act.
Another issue is that when people had problems opening copyrighted files they would email the provider and they would help them to make use of the file.“Respondents have sometimes learned about the infringement directly when users have e-mailed questions regarding copyrighted
works, and respondents have replied with guidance.” http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/syllabus.pdf. This does not look too good for the company because it shows that they knew what was going on and they didn’t do anything to stop it, in fact they made it worse.