By complete coincidence, the day after the INDUCE Act died (for now), the MPAA and RIAA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with regard to the MGM v. Grokster decision:

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to long-established principles of secondary liability in copyright law (and in acknowledged conflict with the Seventh Circuit), that the Internet-based “file sharing” services Grokster and StreamCast should be immunized from copyright liability for the millions of daily acts of copyright infringement that occur on their services and that constitute at least 90% of the total use of the services.

More later, when a PDF or other easy-to-read document is available.

UPDATE 1215 PT

Here is the 46-page document: MGM v. Grokster: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari [PDF].

UPDATE 2 1240 PT

Public Knowledge has issued a press release:

Public Knowledge Statement on MPAA Petition to Supreme Court

Background: The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has asked
the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit /Grokster/ case, in
which a peer-to-peer service was not held liable for copyright infringement.

Statement of Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge:

“There is no reason the Supreme Court should review the /Grokster/
decision. That case was based on the principles established in the 1984
/Betamax/ case, which has lead to the largest and most profitable period
of technological innovation in this country’s history. Consumers,
industry and our country have all benefited as a result.

“The Betamax case was good law in 1984 and remains good law today.”