I find reactions to the Grokster ruling interesting, although perhaps predictable, in that creators (whose expression of emotions are their stock in trade) take a results-based analysis of the decision while the techs see the step-by-step logic in the ruling. I thought Sunday's Pho gathering very insightful but one moment stood out for me. When the question was floated, "Would the RIAA win on appeal?" the first attorney to respond said, "Yes, absolutely!" but then answered the followup "On what grounds?" with a hamminah-hamminaaaah...

As much as RIAA CEO Cary Sherman and their barrister Russ Frackman want the home team to believe that Groskter is Napster, the two are technically and structurally very different beasts, and Judge Wilson saw the distinction.

I guess that's the difference between lightning and lightning bug (yes, happy Jack rolls out the retread yet again for this article.)

As much as I have sympathy for songwriters (really I do!) I think it is their leadership which is failing them. The ©artel could have licensed to Napster and so if John Fanning was too much of a turd to deal with then they could have started their own. They still can, which I hope is agenda item #1 for this week's board meetings.

How much value do you think Universal Music lost this weekend?? How much money did the studios leave on the table by not embracing VCRs?

History repeats itself yet again.