Grokster vs SCOTUS

I think the deciding issue with Grokster is that while sharing programs are capable of it, there has been less than substantial non-infringing use of the programs. There has been substantial use of publishing programs like the web and BitTorrent to publish original content. The only actual non-infringing content published by sharing programs is stuff copied from the web and the spyware that frequently gets included in free downloads. I hope the loss of Grokster will reduce the demand for legislation that may actually harm publishing programs and threaten BetaMax.

There may not have been much economic damage from sharing. Payola and independent promoters show that the market price for disposable music is frequently negative. I think the biggest problem is that with most online music prices being fixed at zero by sharing there has been much less innovation in micro-payment then there should have been. Music publishing should be the driving innovation for micro-payment both to labels and to individual publishers. Instead, sharing programs have been driving innovation for their paying customers: spammers and spyware publishers. The customer is always right. It is best that the customer be the consumer.