[gdw2]

Sounds like a similar concept to Aereo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo)

> Aereo leased each user an individual antenna and DVR situated in a remote warehouse that they could access over the Internet, allowing subscribers to view live broadcast television and to record the broadcasts for later viewing.

[EvanAnderson]

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...

[tpdly]

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.

[account42]

> 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.