The Washington Post today editorializes on Grokster.

It recognizes the difficulty of the dilemma:

If Grokster can . . . be held liable for piracy, defenders argue, what about iPods and other new technologies that can be used either for legitimate uses or for piracy?

This caution is a fair one, and it is critical that the court not adopt a broad rule that threatens liability for manufacturers of technologies whose misuse might enable piracy.

But WaPo also comes down in the right place (i.e., the same place at which PFF came down in its amicus brief), arguing that technology must be protected but that business models can be scrutinized:

A company that builds its entire business model around facilitating illegality should not be immune from liability because of the possibility of innocent use. Drawing a clear distinction between such a product and an iPod would protect both innovation and intellectual property.