Disruptive technologies... ahora, �qu� hacer con P2P?

�Es s�lo la tecnolog�a la que est� dando la vuelta al mercado y a nuestra sociedad?
En el apasionante caso sobre transferencia interpersonal de ficheros (P2P) y los derechos de autor, que estos d�as ocupa al Tribunal Supremo norteamericano, a los medios y a los blogs del resto del mundo, encuentro en la �ltima sentencia una cita de un informe de ATT sobre los dilemas de la innovaci�n tecnol�gica con la regulaci�n, de los creadores con los normativistas.
Como en el caso de Betamax (oportuno ejemplo) no es responsabilidad de la Corte Suprema establecer los ritmos ni las direcciones de estas disruptive nti's. Corresponde al Congreso decidir hasta d�nde est� dispuesto a llegar; mejor, a permitir que se llegue.

" Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through wellestablished distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has admonished us to leave such matters to Congress. In Sony-Betamax, the Court spoke quite clearly about the role of Congress in applying copyright law to new technologies. As the Supreme Court stated in that case, ?The direction of Art. I is that Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. When, as here, the Constitution is permissive, the sign of how far Congress has chosen to go can come only from Congress.? 464 U.S. at 456 (quoting Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 530 (1972)).
V�a IPTA blog
De lo mejorcito y m�s aclaratorio en este debate, que suele reabrirse en verano, es la perspectiva jur�dica de David Brav, juno a alguno de los comentarios en F�lmica.