Grokster, Kazaa, and secondary liability

As we (eagerly? with trepidation?) wait for the judgment at first instance in the Kazaa litigation here in Australia, I came across this post from Susan Crawford, commenting on the Grokster case, another 'secondary liability for P2P providers' case which will go before the US Supreme Court this year. Crawford, commenting on the 1984 Sony (Betamax) decision which held that companies could make and sell video recorders without breaching the Copyright Act, said:

"Taking another close look at that case reminds me how careful the Court was to extend the boundaries of copyright liability only to include (as secondarily liable) those who were doing everything but the actual infringing.

So, for example, someone who produced a script, sold the resulting motion picture to others, and then expected that it would be commercially exhibited (with the exhibition and the reproduction the infringing acts) is seen as someone who has done everything possible other than the final, implementing act of infringement.

And someone who is in an ongoing relationship with the direct infringer and is knowingly facilitating the infringement (again, "doing everything but") is a contributory infringer. Such an actor falls within the very tight circle drawn just outside direct liability.

I don't think the Sony Court would have created an "inducement" standard. They would have gone to Congress rather than make something like that up. The Court at that point was very nervous about expanding the statutory monopoly of copyright."

I wonder if, when Wilcox J pronounces, we will be able to say the same thing?