If the United States Supreme Court takes a position on a subject, it is because they have researched the topic extensively, and they have decided whether the topic does or does not go against the constitution that our government is formed from. So yes I think their decision is fair.
I believe, for the most part, the United States Supreme Court's position of peer to peer file sharing and copyright law are fair. What I don't agree with is the fines that are associated with these problems. While they are there to supposedly reimburse for damages, I believe they are so high that they go far beyond that.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the recording industry in 2005. However, more peer-to-peer programs were created in the years following the ruling and file sharing actually increased in the years that followed. In other words, consumers are still getting their hands on free music and free downloads in spite of the ruling.
Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court's position on peer to peer file sharing and copyright law is fair, because the copyright law has not changed in years. There is nothing objectionable about wanting each person or corporation to have a lasting right to their private property and the right to profit from it. They are only upholding the law.
If a consumer buys a copy of a cd and lends it to a friend to use it isn't considered a crime, peer to peer file sharing is very similar. As long as no "hard copies" are made, and it isn't sold for profit it should be viewed in a similar fashion.