[Cross-posted to SCOTUSblog]

Humble metaphors make for bad internet policy. The Grokster 9-0 opinion doesn't use them.

But the BrandX guys -- my, all that talk about pizzas v. pizza delivery and dogs v. leashes. Just painful. And the use of this simplifying (but really obfuscating) set of metaphors indicates that the Court really didn't know what it was talking about when it started defining everything online as "information services" provided by the access provider.

So I'm hoping that we can categorize everything said about "information services" other than cable modem access as "dog dicta."

In my next entry, I'll go back to musing about Grokster, and, in particular, the meaning and import of fn. 12. We may have another fn. 4 of Carolene Products in the making.