But is the distribution of all that power to the masses good or bad? That, in essence, is what the Supreme Court is really being asked to decide. This struggle has been years in the making, brewing ever since people started to understand what networked computers were truly capable of. The highest court in the land is set to rule on a fundamental aspect of the Internet, the fact that it makes copying stuff absurdly easy -- to the point that a tidal wave of copyright violation has swept across the globe, destabilizing entire industries in its wake.

The specifics of the case concern certain P2P networks, but fundamentally speaking, the entire Internet is a P2P network. It is the greatest invention for facilitating the sharing of information ever created.

Now what do we do with that? Do we decide that because it is easier than ever before to copy intellectual property we must cripple our computers and the Net, because the threat to established business models for the entertainment industry is so great? Or are the benefits from the new paradigm so obvious that it's time to tell the lords of Sony and Universal and MGM to suck it up, to evolve new business models, or die? To go with the flow, rather than try to resist the tide? Isn't it time to let a thousand iTunes music stores bloom?

Both sides in this dispute are right. After the RIAA sued Napster out of business, the operators of file-sharing programs redesigned their systems so they would not suffer from Napster's fatal flaw. Napster included a central index of the files being shared, and so its owners knew who was using its system for copyright violation. But because they did nothing about it, they were deemed at fault.

I believe the record company lawyers when they argue that the changes in design to P2P networks were made on purpose so that the operators of the networks could get away with profiting from illegal activity while still staying within the bounds of the law. When an individual downloads a copy of a new Ashlee Simpson single from a P2P network without paying for it, that is a violation of copyright. Just how morally wrong that might be is a debatable issue. But its illegality is not.

To recap: The Sony-Betamax case decision ruled that it was legal to sell a device that could be used for illegal purposes. The defendants in Grokster argue that the same is true of P2P networks -- they are used for legal distribution of content as well as illegal. And they are correct. But there is no denying that P2P networks are popular because they are a great way to get free access to proprietary intellectual property. It's a big problem for the music business as it is presently constituted, and I have some sympathy for the executives trying to cope with it. If I were in their position, I'd try to stop it, too.

But I would fail because no matter how the Supreme Court rules in this case, the entertainment industry will not succeed in its efforts to stop widespread piracy. New distribution protocols will continue to be devised and people will continue to use them. It only gets easier to copy and distribute content. It never gets harder. Digital-rights-management software will continue to be cracked as soon as it appears. Or it will simply be irrelevant. Even the DRM software included in, say, Apple's iTunes, is a joke. I can buy a new album by the Sri Lankan rapper M.I.A. on iTunes, burn it to a CD, and then rip that CD into DRM-free MP3s and make it available for sharing on a P2P network in a matter of minutes. There might be some downgrade in sound quality inherent in the process of burning and ripping, but not enough to matter to anyone who really, really wants to hear the song "Galang" right now and is unwilling to pay 99 cents for it.

To be totally successful in preventing me from piracy would require a massive reengineering of the entire infrastructure of the digital world. Every device or program that enables the copying of data would have to be redesigned. So the defendants in Grokster are also right when they argue that the logical extension of the entertainment industry's position would mean bringing the digital revolution to a screeching halt. If the test of every new device or new software application or new improvement to the Internet is to ask whether it could possibly hurt the existing business models of movie studios and TV networks and music companies, then we might as well just all pack up our computers, go home, and start sharpening our pencils.

The combination of computers and the Internet is Pandora's box. The court has two obvious options: It can give the entertainment industry the right to stuff everything that has just popped out of that box back in, or it can recognize the inevitable, that the cat is out of the bag and we're all going to have to learn how to adapt.

It is possible to adapt, after all. iTunes is one great example -- even if the DRM included in it is annoying. My desire to search out songs on file-sharing networks plummeted when I was offered an easy, cheap way to get the music I wanted. Now I pay more for music on a monthly basis than I have in years and years. I suppose it's possible that the overall profitability of the music industry might decline in the long run, but then again, it might not. In the most famous example, Wilco's "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" was spiked by its record company for not being commercial enough. Wilco leaked it online, generated a huge buzz among listeners, and then landed a new contract.

Great changes are afoot. Anyone paying attention to the Net has known this for a decade or more. The Supreme Court's decision to hear Grokster is just the latest ratification that profound questions about how to grapple with these changes need to be asked and answered.

And it doesn't have to lead to disaster. Because much as I wax nostalgic about my ancient albums, and worry about the precariousness of a world constructed out of pure data, there is still no question in my mind that what the computer has given us is better than what it has taken away.

Recent Stories