On March 29, 2005, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (et al) will square off against Grokster (et al). Both sides have that one day and a half hour each to make their case in front of nine Supreme Court Justices. The stakes are enormous. MGM must convince at least 5 justices that two prior Federal Court decisions were wrong for not finding Grokster libel for copyright infringement.

On the flip side, Grokster must convince the Supreme Court that because their company does not monitor or maintain any part of the network, they cannot be held responsible for the actions of their users.

So far, two Federal Courts have agreed with Grokster. Grokster’s lawyers have successfully argued that because it operates on a decentralized network, it cannot be held to the same standards as Napster. The core argument in their defense has been the Universal vs Sony precedent, AKA the “Beta Max” defense. In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that because there were substantial, non-infringing uses, Beta Max recorders were not in violation of copyright. Will the same defense stand up today?

The fact the Supreme Court has decided to listen to the case may give some indication. However, it is impossible at this time to know which way the court will rule. That said, they do have three options; 1) rule in favor of Grokster, 2) rule in favor of MGM, or 3) force a compromise.

Many analysts are predicting the third option will come to fruition. What exactly that compromise will be is any person’s guess. A most likely scenario is the Supreme Court may not necessarily find Grokster libel for copyright infringement, however it may force them to better police their network. Considering Grokster does not own FastTrack, witnessing such a feat should prove interesting.

As the March 29th showdown looms, various entities are coming out of the woodwork, filing amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in support, or in opposition to Grokster. A “friend of the court” brief is simply a legal brief filed to support or oppose a party in litigation. On the Plaintiffs (MGM’s) side, briefs have been filed by organizatins that include the MPAA, United States Copyright Office, Songwiter & Music Publishers, various Professors, ASCAP, Kids First Coalition, Macrovision, the Commissioner of Baseball and Americans for Tax Reform.

Seems Grokster is a bit outgunned. However, several Friend of the Court briefs have been filed in support of Grokster. They include, Grokster, LTD and CCIA (Computer Industry Association). While this may seem as though Grokster is in serious trouble in finding support, keep in mind that Friend of the Court briefs are only given validity if they offer insight into the case that the Justices would have otherwise overlooked. Many of the pro-MGM briefs are very generic and duplicative in nature. And now there is one more Friend of the Court brief filed in Grokster’s support, from the DCIA (Distributed Computing Industry Association.)