I think I know why it takes so long to move in the US legal system: They dont read the law - take a look at this and try and find some law: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030508_sprigman.html
Here is my post in response:
Alex Stewart - 02:57am May 2, 2005 (7902. 13254/13254)
Grokster Kazza and Morpheus
If the architecture of the software is so important why didnt anyone at the record companies try to determine whether licences could be granted over the peer to peer network?
As I understand it the standard for (remember I am Australian reading american law) that a person will be liable for secondary (contributory) infringement where their product is not capable of any substantial non-infringing uses. If there is a non-infinging use then there is no liability so long as the producer has not activiley induced infringment.
Now as I see it a copyright infringment occurs whenever a right in copyright is excercised without a defence at law or licence or authority from the owner.
As far as I understand the argument for non infringing uses is based on valid reproduction of material and communication to the public BUT if I were anyone except the true owner how would I get a licence to use the put the works on the grokster system?
The truth is you couldnt - because THE LICENCE TO WORKS SHARED ON GROKSTER COULD NOT BE COMMUNICATED BY THE SOFTWARE. In essence all files transferred into a grokster file where they would be further transferred through peer to peer are infringments.
Now there may be a substantial non infringing use if only true owners of copyright placed items in Grokster files. But Grokster activley induced people to further infringe copyright by making the default saving of files the grokster folder from whence all these files would be shared - I would call that an active inducment.
Grokster is guilty as is Morpheus and Kazaa is much more likely to be taken down in Australia.
If you want to know the truth this issue is political and has been hijacked.