Don’t worry, it’s no big deal- but this Supreme court decision has the potential to shape the way corporations, inventors, and consumers use and consume technology wholesale for years to come. Should a company be held liable for illegal activity made possible by their product? A VCR can be used illegally, so can a shotgun, and as Scalia points out in questioning so can a printing press. But this is a different case when potentially the vast majority of users of Streamcast and Grokster’s software that facilitates file distribution on peer to peer networks are using it for copyright infringing activities, right? But Creative Commons licensed materials, public domain, or even genomics research conducted legally using the same P2P networks should also be prevented?

I don’t think so, for such a ruling (which isn’t expected for months) would stifle innovation and open up creatives to a myriad of unnecessary and damaging litigation. Yes, P2P networks are abused, but if MGM et al. would compete with them instead of attempting to sue them into oblivion it would be a completely different story altogether. Consumers don’t want to pirate maliciously, they simply want an easy way to access a product by making a reasonable payment. Because so many media companies refused to distribute content electronically for a decade consumers were forced to spend their time (money) accessing media in alternative methods, (stage right, P2P). Kids with broadband will always obtain copyrighted material without adequate reimbursement paid, but then again there a lot of folks still taping Blockbuster rentals.

Rational consumers do exist and with them is a sale waiting to be had, this isn’t something that needs to be setting in the courts, it should have been settled in Econ 101.