The article presents information related to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the MGM v. Grokster case. In the Grokster case, MGM argued that technology developers should be held legally responsible for misdeeds of their users if they design a technology that facilitates wrongful acts, such as copyright infringement. The Supreme Court was not persuaded by the argument, and instead ruled that technologists who actively induce users to infringe are responsible for those infringements. Failure to install filtering software in a peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing technology was specifically mentioned as a possible factor by the Court, although insufficient for secondary liability. Litigation threats have caused some P2P developers to start redesigning their systems. Although MGM sprinkled its briefs with references to Grokster's failure to filter, there was no evidence before the Court about the feasibility or effectiveness of filtering technologies.