Grokster Ruling Dangerously Broad?

The U.S. Supreme Court's June decision against Grokster may need to be further defined in order to protect companies with no intention of breaking the law, according to at least one intellectual property attorney.

Case in point is Warner/Chappell's action against the Macintosh-based PearLyrics program, says Michael Graham, an intellectual property attorney and partner with Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP in Chicago.

Reviewing the cease and desist letter sent to Walter Ritter, the creator of the program, Graham said that he believes that the publisher is making "broad use" of the Grokster decision in order to establish its case.

However, he disagrees with this application, and believes that some kind of clarification is needed to prevent companies from attempting to apply the ruling in ways the court did not intend.

Graham argues that programs like lyrics sites should not be considered infringement or contributing to the act of infringement. "I believe it is essential that accurate information be distributed concerning the scope and applicability of the Grokster decision," he said.

Certain companies do fall under this category, such as ones that facilitate illegal copying of discs for sharing or promote the use of these programs.

But cases like the MPA going after lyrics sites will not stop until there is some clarification as to the scope of the ruling, Graham says. He adds that those accused must fight back against what he calls "irresponsible and unfair assertion of copyright rights beyond the scope of copyright."

In any case, Graham believes that this case highlights the need for both companies and consumers to learn more about copyright and intellectual property protections, and their limits.

"Otherwise," Graham says, "the fear of litigation and possible fines may paralyze legitimate development and use of technologies -- exactly the sort of technological handcuffs the Supreme Court refused to apply or support in Grokster."