Another fine decision from the Supreme Court:

Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.

The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn’t be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.

Take our medication, take our homes, but please, please leave the MP3s…

Just because something could possibly be used for illegal activity, should said thing become illegal itself? There’s a bunch of illegal things you could do with guns, cars, medicine, power tools, and so on. But you can also do a bunch of good, legal things too. If you want the good, you have to take the bad. More coverage from SCOTUSblog and Slashdot.

Professor Pamela Samuelson, of UC Berkeley’s School of Information Management and Systems, taught INFOSYS 296A-2: Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Technology: Legal and Policy Challenges this past spring. Graduate students took a look at the crossroads between law and technology, with a special focus on P2P. They created a group blog to analyze and discuss the topic. Some of the students’ research papers are available for viewing.

The Cal Libertarians have a position paper on their website, “Peer Pressure: How fortune will favor the bold in the era of sharing” [PDF]. Interesting take, and a good introduction for those unfamiliar with the issue.

And finally, if you haven’t already, check out Magnatune. It’s a music site based in Berkeley. They demonstrate the kind of innovation spurred by P2P. A bunch of independent musicians offer up their music for free download, and if you like their music enough, you can send them a couple of dollars. Maybe this will be the wave of the future…