Professor Lessig is at it again in a New York Times op-ed, bashing at copyright plaintiffs who take their cases to court in a rather hard to follow line of psuedo-argumentation:

“Drawing upon common law-like power, the court expanded the Copyright Act in the Grokster case to cover a form of liability it had never before recognized in the context of copyright — the wrong of providing technology that induces copyright infringement.”

Gee…let’s paraphrase: “Drawing upon common law-like power, the court expanded the Copyright Act in the [pick your case] to extend the defense of “fair use”, a doctrine it had never before recognized in the context of copyright.”

Or: “Drawing upon common law-like power, the court expanded the Copyright Act in the Betamax case to cover a form of liability it had never before recognized in the context of copyright — the wrong of secondary liability for copyright infringement.”

Oh yes. Grokster was truly a stunning example of law-making courts run amok.