In Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios V

In Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster Ltd., Grokster claimed a fair use exception to the copyright infringement claim because its process was such that it was impossible for Grokster to know if the users of its device were infringing or not.

A) The Supreme Court agreed that since Grokster could not have known whether infringement was occurring or not, Grokster could not be held liable either directly, indirectly, or vicariously.
B) The device provided by Grokster to its customers was capable of substantial noninfringing uses, so the fair use exception articulated in the Sony case was met.
C) Grokster was denied the fair use exception because the majority of its business model was dedicated to appealing to former Napster customers and the model showed intent to infringe on copyrights.
D) Grokster was allowed to use the fair use exception because all of the music its device was designed to copy was already in the public domain and therefore not protected.