The Supreme Court today heard arguments both for and against the legality of the music sharing software Grokster. Grokster attorneys contend that Grokster is a legal communications tool that allows file sharing. The recording industry argues that peer to peer software like Grokster is costing them billions of dollars.

Grokster attorneys contend that Grokster is a legal communications tool.

This has been a hard case on Justices who are afraid that a wrong decision may adversely affect the home recording and photocopying industries. There is even concern that the next generation of devices like the iPod will be killed if their decision comes down too strongly in favor of the Recording Industry.

But during the discussion on whether making Grokster illegal would also make the iPod illegal, Justice Souter surprised everyone. In almost unheard of fashion for the Supreme Court, Souter displayed a thread of reason and a reasonable grasp on reality. Souter suggested that the recording industry was creating a double standard by letting the iPod survive. Entertainment industry lawyer, Donald Verrilli Jr., maintained that most iPod buyers are honest consumers who pay for their digital music.

Donald Verrilli Jr., maintained that most iPod buyers are honest consumers

This is when Souter dropped the bombshell. "I know perfectly well if I can get music on my iPod without paying that's what I'm going to do," said Souter. Supreme Court Justice David Hackett Souter admitted that he would steal music rather than pay for it to fill his iPod, and he makes over $200,000 a year.

Souter, an H.W. Bush appointee, has always been a pariah in the Supreme Court. The events of this case closely mimic last year’s Lawrence vs. Texas, when Souter admitted to committing sodomy in Texas “any time [he] got a chance”. And in his dissent to Bigelow v. M&Ms, Justice Souter said that the ruling violated the equal protection clause "as not all Americans have access to cats and water”!!!

posted by NewsBlog 5000  # Thursday, March 31, 2005