Ethical Responsibilities Before MGM v. Grokster:
Before MGM v. Grokster, ethical responsibility fell mainly in the hands of the companies producing file-sharing software. This position of ethical responsibility was due to the outcome of the Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. decision. In this 1984 court case, the supreme court sided with Sony, which was charged with selling a product (Betamax VCR's) that aided users in participating in copyright infringement. The broad decision of this case was that companies creating products that could possibly aid copyright infringment would not be liable if the technology had significant non-infringing uses.
The Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. decision gave significant power to many companies -- and significant ethical responsibility. Companies producing file-sharing technolgies now had protection against major coorporations (such as RIAA, XXX, etc.). As long as they could prove their technology had SIGNIFICANT non-copyright-infringing uses, they would not be liable for any infringements caused by it. This ultimately left them with ethical responsibilty of not taking advantage of this protection by disguising software that was purposely designed to aid copyright infringement.
Ethical Responsibilities After MGM v. Grokster:
After the MGM v. Grokster case, the ethical responsibility shifted into the hands of the major recording industries.
In the court decision, Justice Souter stated that, ""We hold 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." This decision gave a whole new set of powers to the recording industries. They now have the power to prosecute a company who distributes its file-sharing technology in the manner described in the court decision. Thus, they now have the ethical responsibility of using this power in truly infringing cases only, and not unfairly against non-infringing companies they believe to be hurting their business.
Sources:
[1] Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. decision
[2] WIDE PAPER #1 MGM v. Grokster: Implications for Educators and Writing Teachers
[3] Eric Goldman Technology & Marketing Law Blog
[4] EFF: MGM v. Grokster
