Crappy NYT editorial on Grokster...

Take a look at this piece of shit of an editorial... I grow farther from the NYT every day ("Stands Strongly Against Theft on the Internet ..."):

In another landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Grokster, a company that facilitates illegal exchanges of copyrighted music over the Internet. The justices got the issue exactly right, holding that actively encouraging copyright infringement is illegal, but merely creating new technology that makes it possible is not. The Grokster decision sets out a sensible framework for intellectual property law in the Internet age. [...]

In their zeal to protect technology innovators, Grokster's supporters have shown too little regard for other kinds of creative people. Musician[s], moviemakers and writers rely on sales revenue to support their art and to pay their bills. File sharing's most aggressive advocates like to say that on the Internet, information "wants to be free." But in the real world, creators of intellectual property want, and need, to be paid. Yesterday's ruling makes it more likely that as technology continues to evolve, they will be. (emphasis mine, biznitch)

They're lawyers will be paid... and will inevitably have to give protracted, opaque counsel.