Hi, I need help with essay on CASE BRIEFING. Paper must be at least 250 words. Please, no plagiarized work!Hence, MGM sought damages while respondents claimed that they did not control or monitor the

Hi, I need help with essay on CASE BRIEFING. Paper must be at least 250 words. Please, no plagiarized work!

Hence, MGM sought damages while respondents claimed that they did not control or monitor the use of the software (Casenote Legal Briefs, 2009).

3.History: The district court and the court of appeals both had ruled the decision in favour of MGM with respect to copyright infringement but did not hold the respondents responsible for it and summary judgement was granted. MGM had then decided to move to Supreme Court appealing for summary judgement in their favour (Casenote Legal Briefs, 2009).

6.Reasoning: The evidence that MGM produced clearly showed that the respondents marketed and sold the software as tool that could be used to share copyrighted material. The respondents had a clear purpose of making profits from the violation of the act from the users. The respondents had actively promoted pirating. File sharing tools are not illegal and the manufacturers of the tools are not responsible for how the users use the tool until and unless the manufacturer actually encouraged infringement.

I am of the opinion that the respondents encouraged sharing of copyrighted material on their software. Yes, the respondents cannot control how their software will be used once it is sold but if they generate a sale by promoting the software as a tool to share copyrighted material, then the main purpose of the software will be pirating. Hence, respondents should be held responsible for copyright infringement. Unlike the Sony Corp v. Universal Studios, the only use of software is to share files which can be copyrighted or not. In Sony, VCRs could only play already copyrighted content and in no way contributed directly to