In Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, Ltd., Grokster claimed a fair use exception to the copyright infringement claim because its process was such that it was impossible for Grokster to know if the users of its device were infringing or not. Which of the following was the outcome? The device provided by Grokster to its customers was capable of substantial noninfringing uses, so the fair use exception articulated in the Sony case was met Grokster was denied the fair use exception because the majority of its business model was dedicated to appealing to former Napster customers and the model showed intent to infringe on copyrights. The Supreme Court agreed that since Grokster could not have known whether infringement was occurring, Grokster could not be held liable directly, indirectly, or vicariously. Grokster was allowed to use the fair use exception because all of the music its device was designed to copy was already in the public domain and therefore not protected