It's increasingly challenging for weekly magazines to figure out something to write two or three days after news breaks, which is why I thought it was interesting how the Economist approached the Grokster case.
They basically applied this logic:
1/ Grokster was the best outcome given the circumstances of the evolution of copyright law.
2/But the circumstances need to be modified in an era where digital technology and networks make it easier to zap creative works around.
3/ Why is that the case? The Economist argues that easy digital distribution makes it faster and cheaper for artists, writers, musicians to get a return on their investment.
4/ How do you adapt? Slash the length of the copyright grant.
Not bad at all, logically.