Eff's Page on MGM v Grokster (lots of links at that page. They even plan to have audio of the press conference soon.)

EFF is defending StreamCast Networks, the company behind the Morpheus peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software, in an important case heard before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 29, 2005.

Twenty-eight of the world's largest entertainment companies brought the lawsuit against the makers of the Morpheus, Grokster, and KaZaA software products, aiming to set a precedent to use against other technology companies (P2P and otherwise). As we noted in our arguments before the Ninth Circuit, the case raises a question of critical importance at the border between copyright and innovation: When should the distributor of a multi-purpose tool be held liable for the infringements that may be committed by end-users of the tool?

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (a.k.a. the "Sony Betamax ruling") held that a distributor cannot be held liable for users' infringement so long as the tool is capable of substantial noninfringing uses. In MGM v. Grokster, the Ninth Circuit found that P2P file-sharing software is capable of, and is in fact being used for, noninfringing uses. Relying on the Betamax precedent, the court ruled that the distributors of Grokster and Morpheus software cannot be held liable for users' copyright violations. The plaintiffs appealed, and in December 2004 the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

"The copyright law principles set out in the Sony Betamax case have served innovators, copyright industries, and the public well for 20 years," said Fred von Lohmann, EFF's senior intellectual property attorney. "We at EFF look forward to the Supreme Court reaffirming the applicability of Betamax in the 21st century."

For more about what's at stake in the case, see:

Tech Dodges a Bullet, by Fred von Lohmann [Law.com]
Betamax Was a Steppingstone, by Fred von Lohmann [San Jose Mercury News]
Oral Arguments before the 9th Circuit
Audio: [WMA 10.4MB | MP3 16.4MB | OGG 16.5MB]
Transcript available here, courtesy of Groklaw (February 3, 2004)

Just a question: Was part of the Supreme Court's "final solution" for P2P influenced by the recent "news" about box-office receipts at their worst in 20 years? Their decision shows the extent to which tech companies have ZERO clout viz these entertainment-media Goliaths. Not to mention what will amount to a holocaust against other promising new technologies. But, as I said before, given their recent rulings on "eminent domain" and the Ten Commandments, I'm not surprised in the least. THIS decision ISN'T "conservative," it's radical ideologue, similar to Goliath crushing David . . . or the lions making a meal of Daniel . . . or any other "what-if" scenarios in the Bible.

Taken together with the plans of the Democrats and some Republicans to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" as a means of stifling conservative voices, especially on the radio, this will certainly NOT bode well for any "alternative" voices not sanctioned by these "big boys." (And did I mention their efforts to suppress Ed Klein's Hillary Clinton book?)

SCOTUS is made up of human beings, each with their own natural "leanings"

...but for the most part, Supreme Court members are supposed to "shelf" their own ideas/versions of what is "right and wrong" and ONLY rule according to what is constitutional or lawful AS THEY SEE IT!

(The "as they see it" part is where the trouble resides. That is the "human factor" I was talking about. If you AGREE, then you will like them... if you DISAGREE, you will probably be saying shit like "Oh, they are legislating from the bench!!!" and sume-such.)