4 ms·
Doesn't matter. At the end of the day, you used a key with intent to decrypt such data and extract the original work. Courts don't operate on technicalities. T
by Jasper_ 7y ago
Doesn't matter. At the end of the day, you used a key with intent to decrypt such data and extract the original work.
Courts don't operate on technicalities. The intent is pretty much all that matters, as long as you prove that someone intended to pirate stuff, doesn't matter what rube goldberg machine they use to actually pull it off.
Schemes like this have been tried since the 1800s, perhaps far longer, where someone smugly announces "well technically I didn't defraud them, your honor" and gets sent straight into prison.
- egh5oon 7y ago> Courts don't operate on technicalities. The intent is pretty much all that matters, as long as you prove that someone intended to pirate stuff, doesn't matter what rube goldberg machine they use to actually pull it off. You are absolutely right. This is what enabled prosecuting the founders of the pirate bay, among other things. The fact that files are hosted elsewhere, mangled, encrypted, cut in pieces is entirely irrelevant to the court. Hoping that a technicality gets you off the hook is exercise in shortsightedness.
- amelius 7y agoThe point is that courts can't prove anything based on the information they get from the network. This is in contrast to e.g. bittorrent where every seeder is in direct violation and provably so.
- Jasper_ 7y agoThe same thing that takes down bittorrent users will take down this too: the network log of you typing "Pink Floyd" into OFFsystem's search bar. This is technobabble theater by people who do not understand law nor courts.