<![CDATA[law.com – Article:
…the Court was clearly divided, with several justices expressing frustration over the dearth of factual findings about the magnitude of copyright infringement in the case. The fact that the dispute was appealed only after a summary judgment ruling in favor of Grokster made it appear possible that the Court might put off a ruling by remanding it to lower courts to develop the record.
But there was no disputing that several justices expressed concern that shutting down or punishing downloading might keep Grokster or future software innovators from developing a market for noninfringing uses — a market that might not emerge until after the illegal uses establish the software’s brand.
Justice Antonin Scalia likened Grokster to the inventor of the Xerox photocopying machine, who, Scalia said, surely must have known that his initial cash flow would come from customers making illegal copies. Such innovators would be reluctant to create new products, Scalia said, if the high court laid down a rule that would allow copyright suits to shut them down “right out of the box.”
But other justices also fretted that the millions of illegal downloads cited by the entertainment industry have created a business founded on illegality.
The article is a good summary of the arguments and the Court’s reaction. I think there is too much reading of what mind individual justices are in based on their comments, as they often pose questions they believe challenge their own view rather than ask questions to produce answers to support those views.]]>