True Or False Analysis

Part 1. Answer each question "True" or "False". Briefly explain your answer. (Just a few words may be appropriate, and no more than a sentence or two is needed.) If the answer is "False" your explanation should state how the statement should be changed to make the answer "True". Make sure to include the entire question, with your answer in BOLD PRINT.
__False_ 1.The U.S. Supreme Court decided that it violates the Constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The majority of State X citizens disagreed with this decision, and the State X legislature passes a statute that prohibits same-sex marriage licenses from being issued. As a result, same-sex couples in State X will NOT have the right to obtain a marriage license there.
Briefly answer each question. Use complete sentences and proper spelling and grammar.
6a. The United States Supreme Court (S.Ct.) heard the case of Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Grokster (see p. 7-8 of your text). What courts heard the case before it reached the S. Ct.?
Answer: The courts that would have heard this case before the United
States Supreme Court, would have been “The District Court” and “The Court of Appeals”.
What did those (lower) courts decide? Don't just use the words in the brief on p. 8. Explain what the courts did. (i.e. what happens when a lower court "grants a summary judgment and an appeals court "affirms") Use the text's glossary and/or an outside source if you don't understand the terms.
Answer: The courts decided that the case of Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Grokster granted a “summary judgment”, which is defined as a method for terminating a case at the trial level when there are no issues of fact only a decision on the application of law needs to be. (page G-15) In other words, a court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried. What the appeals court meant by “affirmed”, was that the court of appeals stands by the lower court’s decision as the correct ruling and will continue to stand by their
What led them to this conclusion was the fact that Glokster’s programming was based solely on facilitating infringed data.
7a. In Viacom International v. YouTube (p. 9-10), what was Viacom asking for?
Answer: In the case of Viacom International v. YouTube, Viacom was asking for the infringed data to be removed from YouTube. They also requested that YouTube actively look for infringing videos and clips and delete them. Viacom also stated that YouTube is liable for infringed data found on their site.
7b. What was YouTube doing to address the problem of copyright infringement?
Answer: In response to this law suit, YouTube designated an agent, whose sole job was to receive notices from copyright owners about YouTube infringements. After the agent received a notice stating this, the agent then removed the infringing material quickly. YouTube removed all the clips that Viacom and the others claimed as being infringed upon their copyrights.
7c. How does the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) balance the need to protect copyright owners from piracy while making sure that service providers like YouTube still have an incentive to continue investing and improving the quality and variety of internet