The case is called Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, but it encompasses just about every facet of the entertainment industry, including film, TV and music, while the other side of the legal equation is made up of Grokster as well as StreamCast Networks, makers of the Morpheus P2P software.

Both sides’ opening arguments didn’t reveal anything new. The entertainment industry’s main point of contention is that P2P companies like Grokster and StreamCast are profiting from the copyright-infringing activities of their users, mainly because both Grokster and StreamCast derive income from selling ad space on their software. And, like TV, radio and print media, advertising rates are set by the number of eyeballs viewing the ads. As you can probably guess, it’s the lure of free content that attracts those eyeballs.

Of course, the P2P companies had their talking points as well. Ever since the first non-centralized file-sharing networks first appeared, P2P companies have said that they merely provide the access and what users do once they’re in file-swapping mode is beyond the P2P companies’ control.

This differs from the original Napster, which kept an index of who had what on Napster’s P2P network. In fact, Napster’s centralized indexing was one of the deciding factors when a judge issued the injunction that effectively closed the company back in 2001.

However, those siding with the P2P companies aren’t necessarily in favor of tossing out more than 200 years of copyright law. Instead, they’re concerned that a ruling favoring the entertainment industry might hinder technology, and that future products might have to appease copyright holders before they’re brought to market.

That wasn’t lost on Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that a ruling favoring the entertainment companies could mean that if “I’m a new inventor, I’m going to get sued right away.” However, Scalia didn’t appear to be all that familiar with the individual P2P companies appearing before the court. The Supreme Court Justice referred to one company as “Grokster, whatever this outfit is called.”

Other justices were equally concerned, and questioned whether or not lawsuits might have discouraged or prevented past devices, such as copying machines, videocassette recorders and MP3 players.

Of course, attempts were made at preventing consumers from getting their hands on some of those devices. Videocassette recorders made for a landmark Supreme Court decision back in the 1980s, when the entertainment industry went after Sony for its groundbreaking Betamax machine. And it wasn’t all that long ago when the recording industry sued Diamond MultiMedia in an effort to prevent the first personal MP3 player, the Diamond Rio, from hitting store shelves.

But while Sony doesn’t even make Betamax video recorders anymore, recording a television show is considered as much of the TV-viewing experience as hitting the bathroom during the commercial breaks. And while MP3 players were slow to take off, Apple’s iPod has become one of the most recognizable gizmos on the planet. Yet, even though both VCRs and MP3 players are now considered a part of mainstream consumer electronics, there was a time when various entertainment companies sought their banishment from the marketplace.

But evidently the entertainment industry doesn’t have any problems with MP3 players nowadays. In reference to questions as to whether or not an entertainment-friendly decision might stifle the development of future iPod-like products, one lawyer for the entertainment industry, Donald Verrilli, Jr. described most iPod users as honest consumers who pay for their music.

But Justice David Souter wasn’t going along with Verrilli’s argument, saying that even iPod users would steal music if given half the chance, and then asked why the entertainment industry wants to sue Grokster but hasn’t gone after Apple so aggressively that the iPod’s developer would “lose his shirt.”

“I know perfectly well if I can get music on my iPod without paying that’s what I’m going to do,” Souter said.

But that’s not to say that the court was leaning towards the P2P side of the argument. Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned Grokster’s lawyer as to whether profits derived from illicitly trafficking in copyrighted material could be used to fund a new technology company. “That seems wrong to me,” Kennedy said.

A Supreme Court decision on the legality of file-swapping companies might seem like closure to one of the more controversial issues facing the music industry in the digital age. But other than shutting down companies like Grokster or StreamCast Networks, a decision favoring the entertainment companies probably won’t affect the current problem. While you can eliminate the companies making the software to access the non-centralized P2P networks, the networks themselves are pretty much impervious to any type of legal edict, and most likely will be chugging away in the coming years.

And just as likely will be stories about entertainment companies and trade organizations suing individuals for trading copyrighted material online. Whatever the Supreme Court decides this summer, it will not be the end of the file-sharing story. Instead, it will only mark the close of a single chapter.