come up with one. One also notes that Hollywood thought the iPod was an evil product, back when it was called the Diamond Rio MP3 player. One man's innovation is another man's "Boston Strangler." Of course, not all editorial boards are so clueless. Surprisingly, the LA Times which might be assumed to take a hard stance on Grokster has a balanced editorial ( California's Civil War ): It's worth noting that the lower courts haven't legalized unauthorized copying of protected materials. They simply applied the Betamax test and distinguished Grokster from Napster, the ill-fated file-sharing service that allowed users to illegally copy music on its own servers. What the entertainment industry wants is veto power over technology with the potential to be used illegally. That's not in society's best interest. If those creating the peer-to-peer networks could be held liable for illegal activity, where do we draw the line? Why not go after the manufacturers of operating systems, hard drives and CD burners that can also play a role in illegal activity? Unlike the Washington Post or the New York Times , the LA Times notes what the case is not about, that is, it is not about legalizing direct infringement. Fancy that. The battle over online music piracy is usually presented as David versus Goliath: the poor student in his dorm hunted down by a music conglomerate. It is easy, in that matchup, to side with the student. But when the Supreme Court takes up the issue this week,