Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by EvanAnderson 647 days ago
For anyone who doesn't know, though, SCOTUS ruled against Aereo, who subsequently closed-up shop, filed for Chapter 11, and eventually were sold to DirectTV.

You can't "clever" around the intent of the law (or around a well-funded lobby). An O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy[0] are the exception, not the rule.

(Aside: This is nothing at all like O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy-- I just can't resist the urge to cite it. It's too fun.)

[0] https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Commentary...
2 comments
tpdly 647 days ago
The trouble is that this all builds from case law established before people could use magic vision portals to exploit efficiencies of scale and centralization.

That's not even addressing the magic of infinite copying-- lets suppose we all agree publishers deserve secondary markets be restricted to physical copies. Then the digital age gives us literal magic portals but the benefits are withheld from society because... they want their money. There were laws protecting that money before so the intent of the law is to protect the money in the new age too. For shame.

link
EvanAnderson 647 days ago
> Then the digital age gives us literal magic portals but the benefits are withheld from society because... they want their money.

I'm so jaded about this now that I just assume things won't change until most of the people born before computers were "mainstream" die. Even then it'll probably take another generation or two for the cultural indoctrination associated with "intellectual property" to die out.

And no change will happen if general purpose computers (and the freedom they offer) are effectively removed from daily life. It seems to be going that way via normalization of walled gardens in the name of "security" and the infuriating argument that the computers everybody carries around (smartphones) somehow aren't actually computers and shouldn't allow for end user freedom.

link
account42 645 days ago
> You can't "clever" around the intent of the law

Except the whole reason this case exists is that publishers think they have found a clever way around the first sale doctrine.

link