The widespread copyright infringement that the internet and personal computers have engendered has led copyright owners to sue software and service providers as facilitators under theories of secondary liability. The most prominent lawsuits have been brought against vendors of peer-to-peer file sharing software-Napster, Aimster, and Grokster-who have been held liable under the judicial doctrines of vicarious liability and contributory infringement for the copyright violations committed by their users. Although these secondary liability doctrines are well established in copyright law, the Napster and Aimster decisions have expanded the role that illicit intent to profit from others' copyrighted works plays in determining liability. The expanded scrutiny of intent makes it difficult for developers of copying and distribution technologies to predict their potential liability and undermines the limited immunity for the development of useful technologies that the Supreme Court established in its Sony decision. This Note argues that the Supreme Court's promulgation of its inducement doctrine in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. obviates the need to expand the role of illicit intent in vicarious liability and contributory infringement. The Courts inducement rule effectively plugs the gaps in the existing secondary liability doctrines without the attendant adverse effects of the expanded scrutiny of intent.
