An RIAA spokesman has been making false statements to the press about the MGM v. Grokster case. He has been saying that the Supreme Court held that file sharing is "garden variety theft".
In fact the court's decision says nothing of the kind.
The only reference to "garden variety theft" is in the concurring opinion of Justice Breyer, in which Justice Breyer opined that the Court should not deviate from Sony v. Betamax:
"In any event, the evidence now available does not, in my view, make out a sufficiently strong case for change. To say this is not to doubt the basic need to protect copyrighted material from infringement. The Constitution itself stresses the vital role that copyright plays in advancing the useful Arts. Art. I, §8, cl. 8. No one disputes that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 158 (1948). And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §2319 (criminal copyright infringement); §1961(1)(B) (copyright infringement can be a predicate act under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); §1956(c)(7)(D) (money laundering includes the receipt of proceeds from copyright infringement). But these highly general principles cannot by themselves tell us how to balance the interests at issue in Sony or whether Sony's standard needs modification. And at certain key points, information is lacking." [italics supplied]
He nowhere said that peer to peer file sharing was a "garden variety theft".
The entire decision is posted at http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/04-480.pdf
The actual quote is at page 50 of the 55-page pdf file.