The inducement rule accomplished many of the objectives that inspire expansive liability with far fewer negative consequences. This approach made it possible to protect innocent defendants from bearing responsibility for the misdeeds of others and substantial noninfringing uses while making it possible not to protect defendants inducing in bad faith bearing responsibility. Grokster decision, however, includes several defects. The matter that future courts should, therefore, bear in mind is as follows. Future courts should avoid interpreting contributory liability in expansive ways that expose innocent defendants to liability and suppress noninfringing behavior. Additionally, Future courts should restrict the application of vicarious copyright liability, perhaps to the general contours of respondeat superior, in order to avoid contradicting Grokster’s reliance on fault. Future courts should, moreover, apply inducement narrowly. For example, inducement should be found only when the defendant acts for the express purpose of encouraging infringement. Plaintiffs should not be, therefore, allowed to recover when a defendant simply knows with substantial certainty that his behavior will support infringement. The use of willful blindness should be limited to serving as a substitute for constructive knowledge in order to preserve Sony’s safe harbor, which has been a cornerstone of the Court’s balancing of content-owners’ rights with technological development. The broader distribution plus intent theory, which is premised on a standard that can be satisfied with little difficulty, could have a chilling effect on research and investment into potentially useful technologies. The active step theory could therefore be in the ascendant. The most recent copyfight culminated in the defeat of illicit file-sharing networks in Grokster, and Perfect 10 suggests that the next great battleground will be over technologies characterized by the inverse Grokster scenario. Since the Supreme Court of Grokster declined to elaborate on the relevance of actual knowledge of specific infringing acts in the case of a good-faith innovator, it is suggested to reconcile its jurisprudence under Napster with the Supreme Court’s guidance in Grokster on the proper role of Sony in the contributory liability analysis.