Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: