Well, the Supreme Court yesterday took the easy way out and ruled against Grokster and p2p filesharing networks, holding that they can be liable for copyright infringement if it can be proven that Grokster (and others) had or have the requisite intent to infringe. The opinion solves nothing; it neither deals with the realities of modern technology nor confronts the murky yet very real issue of the public domain, where traditional conceptions of property and absolute ownership break down. Of course people use it to steal. Of course there has been infringement. But the dangers of corporate control of the exchange of ideas on the internet is a far more dangerous reality than any conceivable (and yet unproven) profit loss by the record companies. Yes, stealing is bad. But the internet overall is good and fruitful and enlightening, and we should be extremely wary of handing control over its content to those whose very purpose is to provide and capitalize on their own proprietary content. Their interests are self-serving, and in the long run the internet will suffer. The benefits of an open pathway to the world's expressive content far outweigh the burdens placed on companies who have refused to adapt to the recent paradigm shift in technology we are witnessing.
{{stepping from soapbox}}
I'm shocked, but not surprised. For your entertainment, here are the opinions in .PDF form, curtesy of boingboing.
Opinion of the Court
Breyer's concurrence
Ginsberg's concurrence
