The NYT wieghs in on the Grokster case

There is a nicely measured op-ed in the NY Times today concerning the Grokster case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court tomorrow. With all the copyleft frenzy going on everywhere on the internet it is actually refreshing to read a middle-of-the-road piece. Of course, they don't really come to any conclusion about the case either, so maybe that's where such thoughts take you in thinking about highly contested cases. Despite all the online ranting, I don't really know if I'd say IP is "under assualt" as an concept or anything, not in any meaningful sense anyway - but the article does remind us that most of the copyleft IP proponents and bloggers are certainly considered radical to the extent that thier opinions on the matter are more or less disregarded by anyone with any true influence over IP law in the US. They get a mention but that's it. Who knows, maybe they really will change the perceptions of the general public on IP issues, but that doesn't mean they'll get very far in the courts or in Congress. We'll see.

The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: When David Steals Goliath's Music: "Grokster's supporters are justified in worrying that if the courts are too quick to rein in new technology, innovation can be stifled. They are also right to point out that copyright has sometimes been given too much protection, notably in the Copyright Term Extension Act, which gratuitously added 20 years to existing copyrights. But these concerns do not erase the continuing importance of intellectual property, which is unquestionably under assault.
Both the court and Congress should be sensitive to evolving technologies. But they should not let technology evolve in a way that deprives people who create of the ability to be paid for their work."