1) The decision doesn’t say that people who make products that have infringing uses will necessarily be taken to task. All it says is that if you promote a service that encourages people to use it for infringing purposes that you’re not immune from criminal or civil charges by saying that your product has legitimate uses. You and I, to whatever extent, may think that those laws are wrong, or even stupid, and need to be changed. But I don’t have any expectation that the Supreme Court is going to say that, especially not for a case with such clear lines drawn. With that in mind, the decision makes perfect sense – it’s a clarification of the existing law. The fact is – Grokster should lose. They did advertise their service by enticing people to break the law. They did provide tech support with clear knowledge of customers infringing copyright.

2) There’s a valid argument to saying that this will stifle creativity and drive innovation out of the US, and won’t actually stop anything. I think that’s largely true of every law that regulates technology. It’s not always a bad thing. In this case, I think it’s just more evidence that our copyright (and other IP) system is badly broken.

http://www.megaupload.com/ Link
http://www.yousendit.com/ Link
http://www.rapidshare.de/ Link
http://www.qfile.de/ Link
http://www.sharebigfile.com/ Link
http://freespace.filefront.com/ Link

All these sites (and the other sites like them) are the mainstay for all those who either cannot figure out torrents, don’t want to bother with torrents (and torrent “karma”), etc. They are heavily, heavily used for copyrighted materials, and, as you can see, at least a few sit outside the U.S.