After the file-sharing case went to the Supreme Court, the justices seemed to have reached a halt, thereby questioning both sides from various perspectives. The justices reportedly implied that file-sharing service is a very odd service, as it is a legal product that allows users to download something illegally. They compared the P2P services to Apple’s iPod and said budding inventors may be hesitant to invent something if they think their product may be used as part of an illegal activity, and can probably cause them legal trouble if their idea gains market acceptance.

In support of the music industry (most likely the artists), the justices agreed that file-sharing services are hurting the industry and allowing users to violate copyright laws.

Justice Stephen Breyer compared the illegitimate uses of file-sharing services to the ones back when the printing press was introduced. He said the printing press allowed the copying of books, which was also a copyright infringement, but there were also good uses for it at the time.

The Supreme Court was having trouble figuring out how they could legally hold services like Grokster responsible for copyright infringement when their products have legitimate uses that might include sharing content that is in the public domain. The Supreme Court is currently labeling this form of copyright infringement as "secondary". Another question that is baffling the justices is how they could determine that P2P services were inducing users to download and share illegal material over their networks.

"The scale of the whole thing is mind-boggling. They intentionally built a network of infringing users," said Donald Verrilli, Lawyer, RIAA. He counter argued justices thought process by saying ever since services like the iPod were introduced, it was clear that it had legal uses. The file-sharing services, however, has a different twist to them.

He requested that the Supreme Court overrule the U.S. Appeals Court, in which it ruled in favor of the file-sharing services. The Supreme Court said it couldn’t possibly charge the aforementioned services under the 1984 case, which dealt with videocassette recorders and how they were used to copy movies illegally.

RIAA’s lawyer stated that Grokster’s as well as StreamCast’s business model relied on copy infringement, which is an illegal practice to begin with.

Few justices such as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Grokster and StreamCast might’ve induced users into downloading the vast copyrighted information available via the network.

The original case is between MGM and Grokster/StreamCast. The Supreme Court is expected to reach the final verdict around the June timeframe. Thus far, the Supreme Court is undecided on the entire scenario, and how it would fairly view the matter to reach its ultimate conclusion.