So here's the obvious question: If I read the Supreme Court's decision in Grokster correctly, it seems that the government will have to prove not only that the

So here's the obvious question: If I read the Supreme Court's decision in Grokster correctly, it seems that the government will have to prove not only that they knew that there was infringing material on their servers but that they either colluded with infringers or marketed material as infringing material, right? This seems to me to be important since that's what differentiated Grokster and Betamax. So is there evidence in this case? Are they going to be able to convince a jury of that specific link?