i thought the judge would have been reasonable and pointed that at companies which both would provide content over the air, and on cable. it makes no sense in the reverse.
the biggest problem with what i read in that is that it the concept of copies is flawed and rejectable.
the broadcasters who send the signal over the air have waved/forfiet copyright, to allow the reproduction of the content on numberless devices. and they waved it due to profit from advertising. creating more avenues with identical properties dilating the market reach and diversity of that one signal they intentionally sent out, isn’t a semantic game.
one group forfeit copyright due to advertising, and another picked up on the forfeit copyright and made it so that advertising and content would go to more customers. and that happens after the signal is sent out to an uncontrollable number viewers- the public. and the biggest issue with the viewing public in this context is that it isn’t even limited to one nation and so it is loses even more protection from copywrite infringement. for the providing party isn’t trying to maintain exclusivity and novelty of the work.
it is a company suing someone for making copies of an advertisement. imagine if geico sued tv station 6 for providing unsponsored ads to the public. so geico bought and payed for one ad, but the station showed the ad twice, and then geico sued the station for the redistribution of copywriten material. it is the same thing, the content surrounding the ads are a carrier for the ads. and the advertisers are paying a fraction of what is asked by the company to kill their cash cow; at that fidelity level. cause once the signal is sent out to deliver it to an indefinite number of people, the only thing left of the content is nosolgia. it is the same reason they don’t do it until it is out of theaters.
there only might be wrong doing, if the ads are removed by the repurposing agent. which would mean there would eb a semantic method of getting around