IMHO, the article is the most reasoned, complete and balanced legal (and commonly accessible technical) analysis of the P2P scene. The direct link is http://www.lawtechjournal.com/articles/2002/05_021229_roemer.php
Conclusion More legal questions and conundrums are raised with a technology like Freenet than can be currently answered. Presently, Freenet is still an enthusiast's toy and not the "next" or current Napster, Morpheus, etc. However, even if Freenet never gains a massive user base, the law-defying encryption and distributed caching techniques of the project will likely end up in the next generation of P2P services. The struggles over changes in the Internet, seen through the eyes of emerging technologies, demonstrate that the confrontations between copyright owners and free information advocates will only continue to escalate. This escalation will be inextricably tangled in both legal and technological complexity, as neither the law nor technology appears capable of solving these dilemmas alone. As Andrew Frank poignantly observes, P2P technologies are evolving in a "Darwinian" fashion, proving more resistant to technological and legal control with each iteration.183 The content industry stopped Napster. The industry may stop the FastTrack companies. It may even stop Freenet. Eventually, however, a new system, borne of the lessons of these pioneering technologies, will likely arrive that cannot be addressed within the current practical confines of copyright law. When that day comes, the content industry will perhaps have to consider (if has not already done so) how it will "evolve" in the ever-changing digital landscape.
