And leave a message before 5pm tomorrow, Friday, telling him/her NOT to sign off on an amicus brief supporting cert. in Grokster.

Here's the list of phone numbers.

What's happened is that AGs are politely circulating a brief supporting a grant of cert. -- probably very few of them know what the larger issues are, and probably most of them believe that Grokster is a bad guy who should be punished.

All you have to say is:  "This is not an issue you should get involved in.  What's really going on here is that the studio plaintiffs are trying to overturn Sony.  Overturning Sony would have serious and damaging implications for the high-technology industry in our country -- an industry that contributes enormously to our national economy.  Don't sign on."

I'm in DC for the law professor recruiting conference.  The interviews are about to start, and I'll disappear for a few days.  So far, being here has been a blur of visits -- never enough time to talk.  And a lot of prognosticating about the effects (if any) of the election on tech policy.

The MPAA announced today that they'll be suing individual uploaders of pre-release films.  Some reactions:

1.  Current copyright law is broad, strong, and can be used as an effective tool by content creators.  No need to write new copyright laws reaching manufacturers and service providers.

2.  If in fact the MPAA is going after uploading of pre-releases, they should try to stop the bleeding at its source -- it must be that critics and reviewers and studio sources are leaking this content. 

3.  Why aren't better, legal downloading sites available for the consumers that would like to access this content and are willing to pay a reasonable amount to do so?

4.  It's likely that these suits will have a positive, dampening effect on uploading.  That's appropriate.  I'm not against litigation.  But I don't think litigation is a substitute for better business models.