Well, oral arguments in the MGM v. Grokster case concluded yesterday, and the reports from the scene conclude that the justices were very pointed in their questioning of the plaintiff, MGM. Reading different sources give us different impressions of the mood and tone -- the SCOTUSblog makes us think that the Justices were giving MGM the benefit of the doubt, whereas the EFF seemed encouraged by the hearing from the tone of their press release. They quote Fred von Lohmann, lead attorney for StreamCast:
"The Justices asked all the right questions," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von Lohmann, lead attorney for StreamCast. "They were clearly worried about how this ruling would affect the future of technological invention. As Justice David Souter said, we shouldn't hang a sword of Damocles over the heads of America's innovators."
The transcript is not available yet for free, although you can get it for a fee (why no mainstream publications have done this yet is beyond us). For background, there is a good feature for the layman from the Christian Science Monitor and a wealth of documents available at the EFF's site, including court documents and transcripts of previous hearings. Chris Anderson, Executive Editor of Wired and a blogger, provided an opinion piece to the LA Times (way to go Chronicle) on how the interested parties have evolved from passive to active in the time since the Betamax decision, so check it out before they try to charge you to read it.