The Wall Street Journal has set up an online round-table to discuss the ramifications of today's Supreme Court ruling in rhe case of MGM vs. Grokster. Included in the pundit party: technology lawyer James M. Burger;  legal blogger  Denise M. Howell; law professor Michael Geist; professor and blogger Ernest Miller; law professor and Grokster wupporter John Palfrey; and intellectual property lawyer Christopher Ruhland. They've been updating throughout the day and show no signs of stopping, hitting up all the ancillary issues, from the Sony Betamax precedent to the future of Bit Torrent. Click through for some choice excertps after the jump.
James Burger (12:28 p.m.) I agree this is a victory both for content providers and for technology companies ... The majority opinion clearly condemns companies that induce others to infringe by "purposeful, culpable expression and conduct." On the other hand it preserves the important Sony-Betamax standard that "mere knowledge of infringing potential or actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject a distributor to liability."

Michael Geist (12:36 p.m.) Grokster certainly didn't win this case, but more importantly, P2P technology didn't lose. As many predicted, the court was clearly (and unanimously) uncomfortable with Grokster and what it viewed as intentionally profiting from copyright infringement. By seeking to retain Sony but build in active inducement, it is trying to navigate a difficult fine line...by excluding actual knowledge of infringement, I think this presents a fairly high threshold.

Ernest Miller (12:43 p.m.) Of course Hollywood is interested in innovation that will be better for their business. The question is whether this decision permits innovation that is not favorable to Hollywood's interests. ... I would like to pose some questions. Imagine that Sony had been a nefarious group of active inducers when they brought out their Betamax. Suppose that there was ample evidence that Sony fully intended and explicitly encouraged Betamax users to infringe copyright with their videotape recorder (ads, internal emails, business plans). Consequently, under this standard, sales of the Betamax were shut down. What happens when VHS comes along?

Denise Howell (2:34 p.m.) I'm listening in at the moment to the RIAA/MPAA press conference, at which it has just been said the decision doesn't turn on problems with the technology but with the business model. But the Court's emphasis on providing a "practical alternative" -- an action "against the distributor of the copying device for secondary liability" -- does seem to complicate the task of divorcing its function from its maker's intent.

Denise Howell (4:02 p.m.) BitTorrent markets itself as a "free speech tool," though it also is notorious for the high amount of infringing uses to which it can be and is put by users. Perhaps (as Michael Geist and John Palfrey have also speculated) BitTorrent will set the stage for whether "a more quantified description of the point of balance between protection and commerce when liability rests solely on distribution with knowledge that unlawful use will occur" is in order, an issue the Court declined to reach here.

Ernest Miller (5:14 p.m.) The Court may actually been helpful to the fledgling P2P industry by "punting" this issue ... After all, given this decision, it will likely be a few more years before another case rises to the top court. Technology, business models, and society will continue to change rapidly during these crucial years. By the time another P2P case makes it to the Supreme Court (if it does - who knows what the next technology to be challenged will be), I think it likely that many legitimate uses for P2P will have established themselves, greatly strengthening the case for innovation. Sometimes, punting isn't such a bad thing for those involved in the issue.