Some related posts from Technorati and Google.

 [PSFK] Could MSN Get Sued Over Messenger P2P?: In a unanimous decision the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Internet file-sharing services can be sued for copyright violation if their software is intended to facilitate the illegal trading of protected material. As a result of the ruling, the case, MGM Studios v.

 [A Kuwaiti Online] As if the pictures weren't bad enough, there is fo...: Now if they happen to reverse the Betamax case and the Supreme court rules that P2P technology is illegal, then we can expect an end to the type of file-sharing we have been enjoying for the past few years. But it won't be long before talented techies find a loophole (like the post-Napster family of file-swappers) and create a legal alternative.

 [Nik Cubrilovic] The MGM vs Grokster Supreme Court Ruling: They key difference between the Sony-Betamax case and the Grokster case as pointed out by the ruling is that Sony in no way could take steps to control the infringing uses of VCR recording technology, and played no part in the copyright infingment of its users, but at the same time where able to show that VCR recording technology had fair use applications. Grokster on the other hand promoted itself as a tool for infringing copyright, and even promoted itself as an alternative to Napster after it has been shut down by US courts.

[mindtangle] Grokster: All Employers at Risk?: Copyfighters have been saying for some time that if the MGM v. Grokster decision went down as it did, yesterday, then it would have far-reaching effects across industries totally unintended by the court.

[Scotusblog.com] SCOTUSblog: Grokster, StreamCast Lose: Anyway, sounds like people need to go a bit further in depth to explain that Grokkster is being had on grounds not of actually *permitting* infringment (the idea that a "dumb" system like IRC, P2P, or email "permits" anything is a dangerous one indeed -- they are inherently "permissive" and can only "deny" actively), but rather on grounds of *encouraging* infringment through their advertising/marketing methods. At least EDonkey/Overnet has the good sense to promote really-free downloads like demos and samples, and turning a blind eye to infringement.

[Michaelgeist.ca] www.MichaelGeist.ca: While that may be bad news for Grokster and Streamcast, the decision may actually provide helpful guidance to other file sharing services on how they can survive in the current legal climate. In seeking to define the meaning of "active inducement", the court ruled that liability would require a demonstration of "purposeful, culpable expression and conduct." Moreover, it concluded that there would be no liability for knowledge of potential or actual infringement;

 [Djmonstermo.blogspot.com] Between thought and expression: Court: File-Sharing Services May ...: "Today the Supreme Court has unleashed a new era of legal uncertainty on America's innovators," said Fred von Lohmann, EFF's senior intellectual property attorney. "The newly announced inducement theory of copyright liability will fuel a new generation of entertainment industry lawsuits against technology companies.

Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, Grokster, File Sharing, Supreme Court, Filesharing Review