This article considers the implications of the Supreme Court's Grokster II ruling, which considered four internet file sharing technologies that were previously found by district courts to have been liable for copyright infringement. The technologies considered are Napster, Grokster, Morpheus and Aimster. The article outlines a Grokster II test used to identify infringing file sharing programs. The test relies heavily on whether the producer of the technology advertised intent to distribute copyrighted material. The four factors used to determine liability outlined by the author are whether: (1) defendants made express statements of intent to induce copyright infringement, (2) defendants advertised that they intended to replace a known source of infringement, (3) defendant attempted to filter or reduce infringing use and (4) defendants' business models used as evidence bolstering defendants unlawful intent. The author points to the fact that these factors, while universal in their use in determining the liability in the four aforementioned technologies, were used to produce inconsistent judgments regarding contributory infringement by the producers of the respective technologies. The concept of unpredictability in digital media copyright law stems from these inconsistencies in Grokster II.

The piece of this article that will be most useful for my paper is the section that follows where the author tests the four factors from Grokster II on three new technologies. The technologies discussed here include TiVo ToGo, MyTunes Redux and Limewire. Each technology produces ambiguous judgments using this four factor test since TiVo ToGo can not be assumed to have an underlying infringing use, and MyTunes Redux and Limewire do not operate for profit and it is also ambiguous whether any of these products advertisements can be shown to induce users to infringe copyright. This will serve as evidence in my paper that the current system by which courts evaluate potential copyright infringers is not effective for many technologies currently available that bear striking similarities upon which action has been taken. I suspect that in the future many new technologies will arise whose purpose is, in fact, to replace those that have been shut down by the recording industry-precisely one of the reasons Grokster, itself was found guilty. These developments suggest, as does evidence in my other sources, that the recording industry and the courts will have to work more closely with users of peer to peer file sharing networks and internet service providers to either devise new methods of preventing illegal file sharing or establish a new system by which digital music is made available.

This article explores the relationship between creativity and the community at large. The authors use as their example of a creative industry the fashion industry, and shows the ways that creativity should not be considered only as a matter of individual creativity. Instead, it should involve a "conversation" between individuals and larger communities of people and traditions. In this way, fashion takes many of its stylistic elements from the past. The article gives examples of taking elements from the Polynesian islands, urban street corners, stock-car races, and bowling alleys, and then transforming them into new trends. The evolution of fashion is described, beginning with haute couture in Paris, Milan, and New York that was the fountainhead of new styles, to the introduction of women in the work world, which resulted in a waning of the cultural appeal of high fashion. Then, celebrities and movie stars took the place of elite fashion shows, making fashion a more year-round passion than before. Lastly, the article recognizes the problem of "originality," and denotes the lineage of high fashion. It states that fashion shows the ways in which creativity involves building upon the past and sharing inspiration. Because of this, creativity requires freedom, in the authors opinion. The most innovative work comes from the artful recombination of existing work.

            This article is important for my topic because it examines the issue at large from a less monetary way of looking at things. The article does not discuss whether or not the designers will be hurt financially, but argues that in order for the creativity of designers to flourish, they must have the freedom to borrow inspiration from the community, others, and the past.