Originally Posted by CingularDuality

The answer is that the American people need to stop being such apathetic sheep. They need to educate themselves on the issues and vote! Unfortunately they're too busy watching American Idol (or, to be fair, playing BF2)...

Originally Posted by Rincewind

So, what, are you arguing this opinion is wrong or right? If it's wrong why? Do you think the opinion is wrong because you dowload protected materials? I would really like to know; at least get out and say whether or not you do so we can see where your coming from on this.

There are some key words here that protect P2P technology like bit torrent:

*object of promoting
*clear expression
*other affirmative steps

None of which bittorent (among others) is doing.

Once again, if your business model isn't "use our software to get copyrighted MP3's, movies, PDF's, appz, warez, and gamez" then your a-okay.

Originally Posted by leejo

With respect I don't think you've really thought through how this decision will impact these businesses or don't understand how lawsuits work in real life.

Originally Posted by leejo

What do I think of this ruling? I'm not surprised and I think it makes a lot of sense. Generally it's a good decision. Some form of P2P will emerge that partners with these concerned businesses to protect their interests, and that version will score big. Until then, the free ride is winding down.

Originally Posted by Rincewind

I think the only right opinion as to how this decision will affect P2P in general is of the "wait and see" variety. In all likelihood most of what we think about this case will be proved right given time.

Originally Posted by Alex Krupp

Let me be the first to say I disagree [with the sentiment that this ruling is a bad thing]. I think the Grokster ruling is a stunning victory for innovation, customer rights, and free speech. Instead of peering into the echo chamber, lets analyze the court ruling itself. According to Gillmor, the high court said that, "Grokster and other file-sharing companies can be sued if their products are designed for copyright infringement and don't have safeguards to protect copyrighted material." But does it really say that?

To quote the ruling itself on inducement: What this means is that simply making a product that can be used for infringement is not illegal. Even if the overwhelming majority of the people are using the product for infringement it is still not illegal. Grokster, the company, is only in the wrong because it marketed its product as being a tool specifically for infringement. Take note of how I say the company as opposed to the product. The Supreme Court of the United States has just ruled that P2P software is legal. Grokster -- the product -- is legal, but Grokster, the company, may be sued. I don't see how one could reasonably want a better decision than that.

Gillmor's second claim is that any products without safeguards against infringement are now illegal. Well the previous blockquote would seem to contradict that claim as well, but is there any more evidence in the ruling itself? Certainly if they had said unambiguously that it is illegal for companies to not provide safeguards against violating copright, I would be very upset. However in this particular case Grokster was in the wrong, considering that they could have blocked users at no cost or significant effort to them. Other companies were willing to provide the service for free, but Grokster chose to refuse them because infringing users were its main customer base.

If you read Fred von Lohmann's Grokster Reader's Guide, it seems like this is the outcome he was hoping for. And in fact, in his news briefing afterward he was very positive about many aspects of the case. While disappointed that SCOTUS did not set a clear standard on what constituted inducement, he noted that betamax was not overturned and that Grokster had an excellent chance of winning its case in the lower courts. Who is Fred von Lohmann and why does his opinion matter? He is the lawyer from the EFF representing Grokster.