| Thanks for the read (post author here)! As I mentioned, I am willing to admit that I came into this expecting to find technical illiteracy, and I didn't find much. I agree that the mindset to look for hacks and oversights in laws is a naieve engineer tendency. > No, the courts aren't saying "if you waste a bunch of money on extra hard drives, you can infringe copyright", either. I agree no court wants this, and I didn't intend to imply otherwise in the post. Regardless, as a result of these cases, this is the current state the DVR industry is in as I understand. Wasting money on storage does insulate you from infringement, and people do it to be safe. > a programming language that executes what you intended to write, not what you actually wrote This is a great analogy. It does clearly get more complex when the court is executing "what you would have intended had you known about the internet" though. Edit:
On, > The courts do not care how the copy was made In Cablevision, they did for two reasons: 1. To figure out whether buffering was copying, which is a very technical discussion. See the footnote on MAI Systems 2. To figure out WHO was making the copy, for the volition based infringement test My point here is that it really does get into the technical weeds. I know your point was mostly to just dismiss the deduplication discussion, which is reasonable. If one of my posed problems made it to court, the court would probably just do the "right thing". However, since they haven't made it to court yet, companies don't necessarily want to be the first to gamble on it. |