3 ms·
I think it plays differently before a jury. Juries can easily understand copying files and could potentially invalidate. But it's different when lawyers get to
by fluidcruft 2y ago
I think it plays differently before a jury. Juries can easily understand copying files and could potentially invalidate. But it's different when lawyers get to move the conversation to scary hacker garble about technical skill and intent. Evidence of intent is the real value.
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoJuries are far less incompetent than they're made out to be, not least because both sides get to describe what's happening. And you can't even get evidence of intent from this anyway because DRM circumvention tools don't actually come with a ski mask and a set of lockpicks. You install a tool called "video downloader" which supports a hundred sites and 10% of them have some kind of DRM which it automatically strips in the background, you may not even be aware that it's happening when you use it.
- fluidcruft 2y agoI did suggest that juries are incompetent. 'Why did you seek and install "video downloader"?' is a valid and specific question that gets at intent.
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoThey'd be using "video downloader" to download the videos regardless of whether they have any DRM or not.