Another fun DMCA case

Another fun DMCA case

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks in this forum, which is otherwise so spared from it. I had a point to make and I would only be grateful to explain the reasoning further:

I understand there is a difference of intent. You can much easier claim that you had no idea the web site content was forbidden (it usually isn't) than that the DVD video was (it usually is, codified by CSS). While this will make a big difference in court it does not affect the actual wrongdoing.

By the logic of your own reasoning, you may well argue that you bought a DVD to actually watch it or an e-book to read it. We already know that is a wrongdoing in the broad sense. In the line of the content providers, you are not allowed to "read" to book or "watch" the video -- you only have a license to access the information with a legitimate tool.

What these web content providers are doing is nothing different. They also only allow you to access the material with a legitimate tool of their choice, a "regular" web browser. Whether this is codified in law or code does not matter to them. (And it should not, in the general sense, much as a break-in is a break-in even if the door is unlocked.)

That is why this is similar to DVD CSS. It may be an unjust law (I don't live there) but it is the same reasoning covering both cases, DRM codified in law.