The pre-Grokster commentary continues. Boy will I be glad when we finally get a decision.

Hilary Rosen weighs in from the Huffington Post, arguing that the marketplace is where the issue will really be settled: The Supreme Wisdom of Not Relying on the Court:

This is a big case with lots of money poured into it from all sides. It is said that the Supreme Court’s decision will be one of the most important copyright cases ever on the books. I think it has all the makings of being famous for another reason. Because while the victory of whoever wins maybe important psychologically, it just won’t really matter in the marketplace.

Chris Nolan looks at the meta-commentary in eWeek (Preparing for the Grokster Watershed). No matter what the decision, the lawyers and lobbyists win as the case will move from the judiciary to the legislature.

The fight to change copyright law isn't going to be cheap, short or sweet for anyone.

Scrivener's Error continues to get a jump on the competition (Another Advanced Note on Grokster).

Another change in rhetoric that I'd prefer to see is eliminating the purported distinction between contributory and vicarious copyright infringement; instead, I prefer the term "indirect", which is less inflammatory, more accurate. and a better description of the general class of behavior without getting bogged down into questions of "fault." Copyright is, after all, a strict liability statute; importing fault into it should concern only the remedy (or perhaps highly limited defenses), not liability. However, that would require a wholesale rewriting of the law of indirect infringement by Congress, which Congress explicitly refused to do when adopting the DMCA. [emphasis in original]