supreme court states the bloody obvious.

pause, for a minute, your obsessive clicking on any and all major media news sites. consider this (warning: pdf).

what that actually says is what everyone ought to know: 1. it is illegal to download copyrighted material for free without the copyright holder's permission. 2. it is illegal to create a "device" that has both infringing and non-infringing uses and then to promote it, specifically emphasizing the infringing uses (i.e. the betamax decision is still 100% safe).

the main key that i see in that decision is that napster was ruled illegal and SCOTUS saw kazaa and grokster promoting themselves as napter replacements, therefore explicitly claiming to enable the same copyright infringement that got napster smacked down.

also, don't forget that all this decision does is throw the case back to the 9th circuit, who ruled in favor of grokster and sharman networks in the first place. this ought to be fun.