<s>
Grokster	B-Protocol
Ltd	O
.	O
was	O
a	O
privately	O
owned	O
software	O
company	O
based	O
in	O
Nevis	O
,	O
West	O
Indies	O
that	O
created	O
the	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
peer-to-peer	O
file-sharing	O
client	O
in	O
2001	O
that	O
used	O
the	O
FastTrack	B-Protocol
protocol	I-Protocol
.	O
</s>
<s>
Grokster	B-Protocol
Ltd	O
.	O
was	O
rendered	O
extinct	O
in	O
late	O
2005	O
by	O
the	O
United	O
States	O
Supreme	O
Court	O
's	O
decision	O
in	O
MGM	O
Studios	O
,	O
Inc	O
.	O
v	O
.	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
,	O
Ltd	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
court	O
ruled	O
against	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
's	O
peer-to-peer	O
file	O
sharing	O
program	O
for	O
computers	O
running	O
the	O
Microsoft	B-Application
Windows	I-Application
operating	I-Application
system	I-Application
,	O
effectively	O
forcing	O
the	O
company	O
to	O
cease	O
operations	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
product	O
was	O
similar	O
in	O
look	O
and	O
feel	O
to	O
Kazaa	B-Protocol
,	O
marketed	O
by	O
Sharman	B-Protocol
Networks	I-Protocol
,	O
and	O
Morpheus	B-Protocol
,	O
which	O
was	O
distributed	O
by	O
StreamCast	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Grokster	B-Protocol
,	O
along	O
with	O
Morpheus	B-Protocol
and	O
Kazaa	B-Protocol
,	O
are	O
considered	O
second-generation	O
peer-to-peer	O
file	O
sharing	O
programs	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Unlike	O
their	O
predecessor	O
Napster	B-Application
,	O
these	O
file	O
sharing	O
programs	O
allowed	O
users	O
to	O
trade	O
files	O
directly	O
between	O
one	O
another	O
,	O
without	O
these	O
transactions	O
passing	O
through	O
a	O
centralized	O
server	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Because	O
Napster	B-Application
maintained	O
this	O
fraction	O
of	O
control	O
over	O
the	O
transaction	O
of	O
files	O
through	O
its	O
server	O
,	O
it	O
was	O
ruled	O
illegal	O
because	O
it	O
should	O
have	O
exercised	O
its	O
power	O
over	O
the	O
server	O
to	O
stop	O
the	O
sharing	O
of	O
copyright	O
infringing	O
files	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Grokster	B-Protocol
and	O
this	O
second	O
generation	O
of	O
peer-to-peer	O
file	O
sharing	O
programs	O
sought	O
to	O
avoid	O
this	O
legal	O
obstacle	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
It	O
has	O
been	O
estimated	O
that	O
90%	O
of	O
files	O
shared	O
on	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
were	O
downloaded	O
illegally	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Grokster	B-Protocol
claimed	O
they	O
did	O
not	O
violate	O
any	O
copyright	O
laws	O
because	O
no	O
files	O
passed	O
through	O
their	O
computers	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Grokster	B-Protocol
argued	O
that	O
proof	O
of	O
reasonable	O
,	O
actual	O
or	O
potential	O
,	O
non-infringing	O
use	O
,	O
is	O
sufficient	O
to	O
fulfill	O
the	O
"	O
substantiality	O
"	O
requirement	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
cost-benefit	O
analysis	O
,	O
first	O
introduced	O
by	O
Judge	O
Posner	O
from	O
the	O
7th	O
Circuit	O
Court	O
of	O
Appeals	O
in	O
the	O
Aimster	B-Protocol
case	O
,	O
holds	O
that	O
a	O
manufacturer	O
of	O
technological	O
device	O
will	O
enjoy	O
the	O
Sony	O
safe-harbor	O
only	O
if	O
"	O
it	O
...	O
would	O
have	O
been	O
disproportionately	O
costly	O
for	O
him	O
to	O
eliminate	O
or	O
at	O
least	O
reduce	O
substantially	O
the	O
infringing	O
uses.	O
"	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
April	O
2003	O
,	O
Los	O
Angeles	O
federal	O
judge	O
Stephen	O
Wilson	O
ruled	O
in	O
favor	O
of	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
and	O
Streamcast	O
(	O
providers	O
of	O
Morpheus	B-Protocol
P2P	O
software	O
)	O
against	O
the	O
Recording	O
Industry	O
Association	O
of	O
America	O
and	O
the	O
Motion	O
Picture	O
Association	O
of	O
America	O
and	O
held	O
that	O
their	O
file	O
sharing	O
software	O
was	O
not	O
illegal	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
On	O
17	O
August	O
2004	O
,	O
the	O
United	O
States	O
Court	O
of	O
Appeals	O
for	O
the	O
Ninth	O
Circuit	O
issued	O
a	O
partial	O
ruling	O
supporting	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
,	O
holding	O
This	O
appeal	O
presents	O
the	O
question	O
of	O
whether	O
distributors	O
of	O
peer-to-peer	O
file-sharing	O
networking	O
software	O
may	O
be	O
held	O
contributorily	O
or	O
vicariously	O
liable	O
for	O
copyright	O
infringements	O
by	O
users	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
On	O
25	O
March	O
2005	O
,	O
billionaire	O
and	O
former	O
Broadcast.com	O
owner	O
Mark	O
Cuban	O
announced	O
he	O
would	O
finance	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
's	O
fight	O
in	O
the	O
Supreme	O
Court	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Oral	O
arguments	O
were	O
held	O
for	O
MGM	O
v	O
.	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
on	O
29	O
March	O
2005	O
,	O
and	O
in	O
June	O
2005	O
,	O
the	O
court	O
unanimously	O
held	O
that	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
could	O
indeed	O
be	O
sued	O
for	O
infringement	O
for	O
their	O
activities	O
prior	O
to	O
the	O
date	O
of	O
this	O
judgment	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Grokster	B-Protocol
settled	O
with	O
plaintiffs	O
shortly	O
after	O
the	O
Supreme	O
Court	O
's	O
decision	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
On	O
14	O
February	O
2006	O
,	O
the	O
plaintiffs	O
filed	O
motions	O
for	O
summary	O
judgment	O
as	O
to	O
the	O
liability	O
of	O
the	O
remaining	O
defendants	O
,	O
StreamCast	O
and	O
Sharman	B-Protocol
.	O
</s>
<s>
Defendant	O
Sharman	B-Protocol
Networks	I-Protocol
reached	O
a	O
tentative	O
settlement	O
agreement	O
in	O
August	O
2006	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Grokster	B-Protocol
closed	O
its	O
site	O
on	O
November	O
7	O
,	O
2005	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
the	O
aftermath	O
of	O
the	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
warning	O
,	O
many	O
users	O
became	O
alarmed	O
that	O
their	O
IP	O
addresses	O
were	O
being	O
stored	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Following	O
the	O
shutdown	O
of	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
,	O
blogs	O
became	O
inundated	O
with	O
concerned	O
users	O
fearful	O
of	O
the	O
warning	O
;	O
however	O
,	O
there	O
have	O
been	O
no	O
reports	O
of	O
the	O
use	O
of	O
doe	O
subpoenas	O
in	O
this	O
case	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Research	O
into	O
the	O
effects	O
of	O
warnings	O
such	O
as	O
the	O
one	O
left	O
on	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
’s	O
website	O
has	O
shown	O
that	O
while	O
these	O
warnings	O
can	O
result	O
in	O
a	O
substantial	O
reduction	O
in	O
online	O
file	O
sharing	O
of	O
individuals	O
,	O
the	O
overall	O
availability	O
of	O
downloadable	O
content	O
did	O
not	O
diminish	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Weird	O
Al	O
Yankovic	O
mentions	O
Grokster	B-Protocol
in	O
"	O
Do	O
n't	O
Download	O
This	O
Song	O
"	O
.	O
</s>
