Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
United States District Court for the Central District of California
243 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (2003)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Niklas Zennström (defendant) and Janus Friis (defendant) developed FastTrack networking technology, which was used to power three file-sharing networks: Grokster, Ltd. (defendant), Streamcast Networks, Inc. (defendant), and Kazaa BV (defendant). The FastTrack technology was owned by Zennström’s company, Joltid, Ltd. Kazaa BV, which was launched by Friis, transferred ownership of key assets, including the Kazaa.com domain and Kazaa desktop software, to a newly formed company, Sharman Networks, Ltd. (Sharman) (defendant). Joltid then granted Sharman a license to use and sublicense FastTrack. Zennström, Friis, and their business enterprises were all based outside the United States, though large numbers of Americans downloaded the Kazaa application. Files shared on the system included copyrighted content. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. (MGM) (plaintiff) brought a copyright-infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In attempting to establish that Sharman engaged in contacts with California, MGM asserted that approximately two million Californians had downloaded Kazaa. Sharman moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.