Some related posts from Technorati and Google.

 [Media Cynic -- Independent Political Blog] Political Roundup 6-30-05: The Association of British Insurers has issued a new report that says the average annual insurance costs from storms will rise $27 billion by 2080. The new report also states that the annual costs from the U.S. hurricane season will increase by 75%.

 [lettrist] MGM v Grokster Ruling (w/multiple commentaries): Whether or not today's ruling unleashes new litigation against innovators, it will have no effect on the tens of millions of Americans who continue to use P2P file-sharing software, nor will it deter off-shore programmers living beyond the reach of US copyright laws. Hilary Rosen is right: giving music fans a compelling legitimate alternative, whether through collective licensing or simply competing with free, is the only solution.

[IPTAblog] More Grokster Links: What MGM really wanted in Grokster was for the Supreme Court to overturn or radically reinterpret the Sony decision and eliminate the safe harbor for technologies capable of SNIUs. MGM thought that the Supreme Court would be so shocked by the exceptionally large volume of unauthorized up- and downloading of copyrighted sound recordings and movies with the aid of p2p technologies, and so outraged by Grokster’s advertising revenues—which rise as the volume of infringing uses goes up—that it would abandon the Sony safe harbor in favor of one of the much stricter rules MGM proposed to the Court.

[Computing Technology NewsPort] File Sharing and the Supreme Court: The Fallout: Lower courts had applied the Sony Betamax guidelines in the Grokster/StreamCast case, focusing on the idea that peer-to-peer networks like those operated by the defendants have noninfringing uses, and that software distributors have no direct control over what consumers do with their products, and therefore should not be held liable. Where these courts erred, according to the Supreme Court, was in ignoring evidence of secondary liability stemming from other causes, namely active inducement.

[Scotusblog.com] SCOTUSblog: Grokster, StreamCast Lose: In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that even if sometechnology could be used to infringe on copyrights, it could not be guilty of contributing to that infringement if it was capable of "substantial non-infringing uses." The Court found that taping Mr. Rogers and "time shifting" were substantial non-infringing usesand saved the movie business from self-immolation.

 [Acsblog.org] ACSBlog: The Blog of the American Constitution Society: Unanimous ...: The presence of a "substantial non-infringing use" is no longer an absolute defense to vicarious copyright liability, the Supreme Court held in unanimously limiting its 1984 Betamax decision. The Court held that those who facilitate copyright infringement like the file-sharing software developer at issue in Grokster are liable for their users infringement where there are "affirmative steps to foster infringement." The Justices saw enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.

[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;

[Blog.ericgoldman.org] Technology & Marketing Law Blog: Grokster Supreme Court Ruling: At least in this case, the “taint by association” with Napster pervades the defendants, so I think that there’s no way that these particular defendants could change their behavior to satisfy the Supreme Court. However, in future cases, I think it would be helpful to know how a defendant becomes a former inducer, and I cannot tell from this opinion what that would entail.

Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, File-sharing, File Sharing, Filesharing Review