Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
Wouldn't that point just affect the amount of actual damages that can be claimed?
I don't see how that would help or hurt with a conviction.
|
let use robbie's site as an example
suppose i wrote a program that virtualized the video card and did a bit by bit copy of that data to file.
I now have a shareable version of his encrypted stream video
i setup a torrent site to service all the people that "Robbie refuses to sell too"
before i let them access the torrent i put some kind of declartion that they don't want to buy his content under his streaming only rules.
That could be a person who got suckered into buying because he doesn't clearly specify on his tour that it is streaming only all the way to the people who simply want to have the right to watch the movie they bought a viewing right after their membership is cancelled (timeshifting)
The explictly declare they are not potential or actual customers.
Now the act of providing the functionality is not an infringement (rule 4 of the fair use doctrine)
i have not change the value of your copyright material ergo it falls under the fair use exemption ergo no copyright infringement
Unless you get one of those people to admit the lied and were in fact replacing a membership they would have bought with the free offer of content i am providing.
if you do, then i send them to jail for committing fraud, since i set my system to provide only to those outside the scope of your delivery of copyrighted material.
This is a bit of an abuse of ruling, equating regionality restrictions to format restrictions but since you are deliberately denying an established fair use (timeshifting) using the same arguement that the court already ruled was invalid (you only get access at the time, i give you access) i didn't think it that bad.
Odds are it will be use for movies pirated in a region where the content is not distributed
ie (dr who confidential in canada/US).