The U.S. Supreme Court judges heard arguments in the Grokster case Tuesday, giving observers a chance to guess the outcome by interpreting the questions asked of the lawyers. But initial reports
indicated that the Supreme Court was typically inscrutable Tuesday, showing skepticism about the arguments on both sides.
Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times wrote that by the time
the argument ended, "any prediction about what the court will actually decide appeared perilous." At the same time, she found the judges, "surprisingly responsive... to warnings from Grokster."
The Supreme Court's ideological liberal-conservative lines weren't as apparent as usual, from reports of yesterday's arguments about whether peer-to-peer companies should be held liable for
copyright violations made possible by their technology. Though the Bush administration sided with the movie studios, Justice Antonin Scalia -- typically on the far right -- expressed concerns that
allowing the lawsuit against Grokster could stifle innovation. "What I worry about is a suit right out of the box," he said.
At the same time, Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- considered one of
the court's liberals -- told an attorney for the peer-to-peer companies that a 25-year-old decision that seemed to support Grokster was murkier than the file-sharing companies want to believe. In
1984, the U.S. Supreme Court held that VCR manufacturers weren't liable for copyright infringements enabled by the machines. The court based that holding, in part, on the finding that VCRs were mainly
used for "time-shifting," which doesn't infringe on copyright laws.
While the judges' views remain uncertain, there's no doubt about the passions of advocates. In the type of spectacle
usually reserved for abortion or the death penalty, peer-to-peer supporters picketed outside the courthouse with signs like, "Hands Off My iPod."
Several feet away from the pro-Grokster
crowd, people with guitars displayed signs such as, "Don't Steal My Future" and "Feed a Musician."