That's the question asked at Copyfutures recently, speculating on what might happen in the Copyright Wars next year.

The highlight should be the Supreme Court's pending Grokster decision, which might establish a right to technology that might infringe on copyright, or might overturn the old Betamax case.

But John Amone is asking a deeper question.

Namely, does it matter what the court holds at all?

The copyright industries feel they can continue indefinitely on two separate tracks -- attacking technology (and users) through the courts on the one hand, innovating new business models on the other. And John offers some examples of possible innovation.

I say they can't. The copyright industries are creating die-hard, eternal enemies, lots of 'em. And the more enemies a law has, the more difficult enforcement becomes.

The vast majority support laws against child porn so those laws can be enforced, even online.

A majority supports copyright, but that support weakens with each legal attack. The industry thinks people say to themselves, "Oh, I better watch out," but in fact those people are already fairly observant of the law (or ignorant of circumvention).

The danger comes from the growing minority willing to go out of its way, and take on some risk, in order to violate copyright laws.

I'm not just talking about pirates here. I'm talking about ordinary dentists who rip DVDs because they're afraid the content will not be available later under current rules.

The ability to enforce any law depends on two factors. First is the general willingness of people to follow the law. But second is the extreme desire of some to violate it. The key to successful enforcement lies in reducing both these numbers.

In copyright, as in terrorism, we're failing. Our strategy isn't reducing the number with an extreme desire to violate the law. In fact, in both cases, those numbers are going up.

And when those laws get high enough, any law becomes unenforceable. Anarchy reigns. We're moving steadily toward copyright anarchy.