This is a matter for Congress to deal with, or not, as the Congress sees fit — not the Court, at least not at this time. The Court has a clear principle, carefully wrought in Sony after extended argument and deliberation no copyright liability for the producer of a product capable of substantial non-infringing use, even if it is used by some for copyright violation. This principle has helped produce wondrous technological and social energy. Why should the Court be pushed to compromising principle with tinkering in order to appease an industry getting bruised by disruptive technology? Internet is a disruptive technology. Get used to it.
RIAA’s strategy of dealing with disruption to the entertainment industry’s current business plan by tinkering with Law is a loser, for Law and for the entertainment industry.
Brief to the Supreme Court Audioblog (4 minutes)
and you made such a good record company executive for our cyberlaw class! read the grokster stuff (i will listen too but i dont have any audio access), and got more into the P2P argument. I actually found your page by googling dancehall reggae on the internet, finding your son in laws blog, and then linking over to your blog. . . . from cambridge to jamaica back to cambridge. i look forward to hearing more about the jamaica project– i didnt imagine the Grokster defense could be so affirmative and positive.
—- nicole (said hello at the berkman society mixer)