I don't think this is really relevant. This isn't about logic or about programming, it's about trying to conform to the spirit of what the law says, and the intent behind it. The idea of copyright is "when you reproduce something, the creator should get a cut". Sure, we can argue all day what counts as a "copy" when it comes to computers, but... c'mon. One Bluray disc is bought, and one person gets to watch it. When they're done with it, someone else gets to watch it. This is how a library works. This is how Netflix's DVD-by-mail service works. But just because a computer and a network are involved, it's somehow different? No, sorry, I don't buy it.

If the law really does say what VidAngel did is wrong, then the law is wrong and should be changed. I think it should be obvious to anyone who can read that the big media companies have (successfully) fought for decades to unfairly protect their bottom line, at the expense of everyone else. That's not ok; governments should not exist to protect crappy business models. Hell, there'd still be plenty of money to be made with much more lax copyright law.

This seems to be equating copying with performance. They're not the same thing, and for most artists in recorded media, it's performance royalties that generate their primary income.

If you wanna change that, find some other way to compensate artists first. They are the value creator. Attacking the bloated middlemen in the delivery chain doesn't remove the need for creators to eat. That is VidAngel's moral failure, as least going by the scenario as described: they weren't returning value to where it came from, instead tried to create a legal fiction to justify rent-seeking behaviour.

Confusing copying and performance doesn’t matter to this argument because whether or not you consider lending a book copying or performance lending a digital book should work by the same rules.