Yeah if you get realistic about it, courts in the USA simply see it the way of the party with the most money all the time. You can interpret laws until you're blue in the face, but they get to break the rules.
Clearly whenever we discuss laws in the USA as they pertain to a small party versus a giant corporation, we do so in the context of a hypothetical fantasy where these laws are actually followed equally.
It's like everybody's playing hide 'n seek, and you're like "of course a real SWAT team would surround and find you in moments".
> Yeah if you get realistic about it, courts in the USA simply see things in the way of the party with the most money all the time.
This might or might not be true, but even if it’s true it’s not (necessarily) a sign of bias or corruption on the part of the legal system, it might simply show bias (or rather strategic foresight) in what they bring to court.
In the spirt of Von Clausewitz’s On War, it is always easier to attack than to defend, because the defender has to maintain a solid performance throughout every inch of their line, while the attacker need only find a weakness and exploit it.
RIAA might’ve decided months or years ago that as part of their legal strategy they needed to curtail downloading an intact local copy of streamed content, since then they might’ve been seeking the perfect violation that, in the opinion of their lawyers, would show clear enough intent to break copyright law, be a core node in the ‘ecology’ of the downloading-streams strategic landscape, and have a hope of creating suitably broad and useful precedents to employ later. Maybe this case finally caught their eye. Maybe they’d been eying it for a while and only just recently something changed and opened the barn doors for attack (in the RIAA lawyers’ opinion — for example, was the example added to the test cases recently?)
A good question is: why didn’t they do this earlier? Another good question question is: could they do it to anybody else, and if they could, why haven’t they?
So you see it as the judges typically ruling in favour of the corporations. I see it as perhaps the corporations being very savvy in choosing what to attack and being willing to wait for ages for the perfect circumstances.
> Yeah if you get realistic about it, courts in the USA simply see it the way of the party with the most money all the time. You can interpret laws until you're blue in the face, but they get to break the rules.
This is a result of money being a proxy for competence.
Clearly whenever we discuss laws in the USA as they pertain to a small party versus a giant corporation, we do so in the context of a hypothetical fantasy where these laws are actually followed equally.
It's like everybody's playing hide 'n seek, and you're like "of course a real SWAT team would surround and find you in moments".