I couldn't care less about the ethics of the users infringing on copyright laws. Keeping directly on topic: if a P2P network operator is clearly endorsing the act of transfering files that are copyrighted (without permission) and/or they are directly making a profit in some form because of it - then they're guilty.

"How can you steal that which is still there?"

/EDIT/ And look at all the promotion RIAA/MPAA/ARIA and the like are getting! They couldn't have it any sweeter: release copyrighted material on an easily exploitable medium, sue them for using that medium to copy to another medium, have the "press" publicise the fact that people exploiting the medium are evil and should be persecuted (AFTER LURING THEM WITH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL).
So even at the end of the day, if you didn't buy buy it - or weren't going to buy it, you've been given the "know-how" as to do it anyway.
That is: go down to your local music store or buy online (or did everyone else think like them and find there's going to be more money in sueing than selling?)
Hooray for the human race, argueing over a few million bits of data that can easily be reproduced by recording the sound of a scientist bashing their head against a brick wall.

You always talking about murdering example, because you can't say "stealing", because Intellectual property stealing is not the same. When you steal real property, its original owner loses it. When you "steal" intellectual property, noone loses this property itself. That's why people continue to steal intellectual property - they clearly see, what it's not so bad, as real stealing. That's there's no way to stop p2p transfers - people just don't think they breaking the law.

I don't have much faith in the Courts either. A senile old man decided that you can grow and smoke marijuana entirely in one communtiy and be guilty of engaging in inter-state commerce. This excuse is a green light for federal invasions.

That same judge thinks it's right to condemn homes, throw people out and give their land to a corporation which throws $ at city hall.

No doubt that J.P. Stevens will come up with more baloney regarding P2P no matter what the rest decide...

They're inconsistent. Gun manufacturers don't sell firearms directly to the public. You cannot obtain a case of beer from the big corporate breweries at wholesale prices either. On one hand they'll sue a Smith&Wesson if a felon isn't caught by madatory police background checks or the FBI's NICS computers. On the other hand, no car dealers run background checks on buyers. Nobody sues them for selling a weapon to idiots with a deluge of DUI convictions when they do it again...

I'm not holding my breath for a good decesion here. The court just ruled that private property can be taken over by government for the economic benefit of the community. Policy (despite the fact that the justices are partyless and are supposed to be neutral) seems to be favoring the corporations over all else as of late. Since p2p has been used for 99.9% illegal uses I'm sure they won't have a problem trying to stem intellectual property theft any way they can. I hope I'm wrong though.

I dont understand why the company could be in trouble. People design stuff all the time, and if people use them for bad. We don't sue, or take the company to court. copyright infringement is illegal. So is shooting someone with a gun, or speeding in a car, or using a computer to hack into a server. All illegal activites using 100% legal products. But we aren't sueing the car/gun/computer manufacters are we. They are only trying to sue the companies because they are trying to fight a battle that can not be one. There will always be a bigger and better way of sharing files. You can't make it stop. It will continue to grow as long as living costs increase and more products hit that market that people want to buy. It will always be there.

I agree with you on the cost part Auiotour

I think about about the whole thing with peer to peer software. People who make this and the stuff that go with should be liable of it. To who the people use it and use as their personal use should not be liable. Hey it is a free internet.

What a ludicrous theory. So the guys who invented guns should be liable for the millions they've killed over the ages - because hey, your US is a free country, right?

Grow up.

Umm...not quite the same thing. Gunmakers ARE liable if they sell to convicted murderers and such. IF THEY KNOW that they are selling to someone who is likely to use it illegally, and they do, gun retailers ARE partially liable. If P2P companies knowingly allow their networks to be used for illegal purposes they should be as well. This is the Supreme Court people, they always base decisions on previous cases and I am confident they will make the right decision.

Judging from the fact that they want the state and private corporations to be able to take your house (today's ruling), it seems unlikely that they will stop corporations from taking your music, your computer, your money, your girl, etc.

Can't wait!