that deprives people who create of the ability to be paid for their work. That is sort of a blanket statement isn't it? There are lots of technologies that deprive people who create of making money for their creation. The VCR, for one. The VCR is used to infringe copyright, which it seems, automatically takes the money out of the hands of creators. Should the evolution of the VCR have been stopped? Brilliant editorial New York Times , bravo. Cheap rhetorical tricks, unsubstantiated statistics, and complete lack of an actual solution. Is there any error that wasn't made? I haven't read them all, yet. However, I have read the brief from Berkman ( Brief of Amici Curiae Internet Law Faculty in Support of Respondents [PDF] ). The brief is in three sections. The first part is a description of innovations that would be threatened by a new secondary liability standard as well as a takedown of two of the main academic arguments in favor of Hollywood's position from professors Lichtman, Landes and Arrow. The second section is an argument that there are business model solutions to the P2P problem, such as Apple 's iTunes . Indeed, there is a business model solution. However, one argument that isn't frequently made is that the secondary liability standard that Hollywood promotes has perverse incentives. If, as they argue, technologies should be liable based on the prevalence of infringing activity using the technologies, the incentive is for Hollywood to passively encourage infringing content in