Re:The Big [Censored] Theory
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @04:37AM
(#32648025)
I understand that point of view in general, but in this case the only thing making the service a violation in the first place was one dumb trick. I would argue that Aereo was doing their best to remove technicalities.
The ruling also managed to make the law even more inconsistent. If I rent an antenna and install it in a datacenter for TV, that's kosher. If I rent an antenna and pay someone else to install it in a datacenter for TV, that's a copyright violation.
I guess that's where intent comes in? It looks like a technical workaround with the same end result...
But also I won't deny the copyright owners have done a great job in making the law do exactly what they want it to, nothing more and nothing less.
Programmers seem to think about the law like a program, like a set of rules governing system behaviour and so long as they are not directly violated, this one neat trick judges hate will let them do whatever it is without recourse. But that's not true, firstly because the law is fuzzy and deals with human behaviour, including taking wider views, intent and mitigating circumstances into account, and secondly taking decades or centuries of established case law into account too.
It's why things like "smart contracts" are not the end run around the judicial process that their creators would like...