1. Why was the Court so concerned about the Open Nap program offered by StreamCast and Grokster?
2. Why do you think the Court refused to apply the Sony exception in this case?

Grokster, a P2P provider, used a business model whereby it would be impossible for Grokster to know if the files being shared were an infringing use; thus, they argued that no Napster-like imputed liability could attach and so no contributor infringement existed. Grokster alleged that this is the same business that Sony was in when selling the Betamax and they were entitled to the same type of fair use exception of “capable of substantial non-infringing uses” as the Supreme Court articulated in the Sony case. When MGM studios sued Grokster both the federal trial court and the federal court of appeals agreed with Grokster and allowed Grokster to use the Sony exception in their ruling against MGM.