Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian presidential candiate, has posted a re-print of a great article by Thomas M. Sipos on his blog. Mr. Sipos provides an interesting perspective on the recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain. I recommend you check it out.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided against the file sharing application in MGM v. Grokster. What follows is the rant that I promised yesterday, if this happened.

For those of you who aren’t up to speed on this one, I’ll try to summarize. Grokster is a software program that allows consumers to share files across the internet. It is “peer-to-peer” software, which means that users connect directly to other users in order to search for and exchange files. File information is never sent to a central Grokster server, and Grokster has no knowledge or control over the files that consumers exchange using their software.

According to MGM, and not really denied by Grokster, a large majority of the files that are exchanged using the software are copyrighted music and movies. Grokster stressed the benefits of peer-to-peer technology over the more common ways of exchanging files, which depend on a central server. They claimed that their technology has considerable uses other than to facilitate the exchange of copyrighted material.

I have read through the Opinion of the Court, and it appears that Grokster didn’t do a whole lot to help themselves. It is obvious that they did little to discourage the exchange of copyrighted material, and there is considerable evidence that they used the availability of free copyrighted material as a selling point of their software to help attract more users, which translated into more advertising dollars.

So, the Supreme Court decided that Grokster went too far. Their decision claims that this is not an indictment against all types of file sharing software. It is not a decision against any company or application that facilitates the sharing of copyrighted material. It is just Grokster. Clearly, they went too far.

Basically, today, the Supreme Court drew a line. A very fuzzy line. A line that will be moved, shortened, twisted, and bent so often over time that it will disappear entirely. What eventually happens when the Supreme Court draws these fuzzy lines was made painfully clear just last week, when the line that was “public use” disappeared and became, instead, “private use”.

Read the rest of this entry…

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court tomorrow. Several important decisions will be announced, and possibly one or two retirements, on the last day before a three month summer break.

Most people are looking for a resignation announcement from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is 80 and has thyroid cancer. I guess it is also possible, but less likely, that Sandra Day O’Conner, 75, or John Paul Stevens, 85 will step down as well.

I am most concerned, however, with the decisions that will come down. A big one concerns internet file sharing, and will decide if software makers who create file sharing applications are liable if users of their software share copyrighted material. If they are found to be liable, look for a new rant from me.

Another case deals with the “Ten Commandments” issue. Are state buildings, such as courthouses and capitol buildings allowed to display the Commandments? I believe this is a states issue and should not be made illegal by the federal courts.

Let’s hope the Justices come down on the side of liberty and personal freedom, but based on recent history, I’m not holding my breath.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that local governments can seize people’s homes or businesses, against their will, for private development. This means that if city officials prefer to see, for example, an office building where your home is located, they can force you to sell your property to a developer at what they determine to be a fair market price.

This officially drives the stake through the heart of any remaining property rights that we may have thought we had. The government now has full consent to take anyone’s property, as long as they determine it will be ‘upgraded’.

Read the rest of this entry…