This all strikes me as so much venal moral posturing without attempting to comprehend, let alone grapple with, the making of hard choices implied by any of these developments--even those that, for practical or even moral matters--turn out to be incorrect choices.
 

PS. On the Grokster decision-I was contemplating running for city council so that I could attempt to seize "for public good" all the music copyrights of the major labels under the newly expanded eminent domain provision, so I am no particular fan of that decision. But it ws 9-0 and it was 9-0 because Grokster started out by advertising that its service was a way to beat -- ie., violate -- copyright. You can't advertise yourself as a way of skirting the law and then try to plead nnocence later. The decision leaves untouched services that never made such claims and those cases have yet to be argued should they be pursued...