Kim Weatherall (Associate Director of the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia) has posted an excellent analysis of the judgement in today's Australian court ruling against the Kazaa P2P network:
In effect, Wilcox wanted to split the baby. He didn't want to absolve Kazaa in this case. He wanted to put a stop to some of the infringement. But he also wanted to make it clear that P2P file-sharing could go on. So he tried to tread a middle path. In my view, the middle path here is unlikely to be a viable one. As I mention below, I think the better approach might have been to frame the rule on liability in a way that would catch the bad actor but avoid imposing liability on all technological innovator
(via Michael Geist)