And new services can pop up overnight to take their place. If the judges keep doing this, app makers will simply implement John Gilmore's precient thought: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it"
Might as well apply this template to other areas too
Doctors are not above the law. When a witness dies, valuable information is irretrievably lost. So we propose a bill that requires doctors to comply with court orders to bring these witnesses back from the dead so they can be questioned. We aren't mandating how this is accomplished, only that they comply with our demands.
The cable subscription business model is on its way out anyway. Sure, it's good to do the right thing here. But for me, I do not now nor will I ever in the future subscribe to TV services that I cannot receive over the internet.
IANAL, but... Would it be possible for the EULA to actually grant the customer *ownership* of a particular piece of hardware, even if it is just a sliver of a hard drive platter or a few billion SSD transistors. Then—in theory—law enforcement would need to get a warrant to search/seize the property of that person. Heck, even if it required a new business model (like a massive battery of drives, and each customer literally gets ownership of one) I might be willing to pay a bit for that service if it means my data must now be treated as any other property I own.
Re: Why would a defense lawyer (or ANYONE) get to keep stolen assets?
OK, so basically the supreme court just said, "have you heard of due process? Yeah, well that still a thing we do around here. Innocent until proven guilty and all."
My point is the govt has no argument in saying that if they can't seize before, then the money might be spent if he is eventually found guilty. Even if it's spent, it would now be known stolen money that could be recovered via possession of stolen property laws.
Why would a defense lawyer (or ANYONE) get to keep stolen assets?
IANAL, but I thought there were already laws out there to prevent stolen assets from being kept by a third party. For example:
Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has.. acquired stolen goods in some way other than they themselves having stolen them.
...if an individual... knew they were stolen, then the individual is typically charged with... [a crime.] If the individual did not know the goods were stolen, then they are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted...
So what's everyone getting all worked up over? If the guy is found guilty, then the lawyer has to give the money back.
At some point, mobile devices will not only have an "unlock" code, but also a code that opens an instance of the phone with all of the actual data hidden and secondary data showing. The second code could have the feature of permanently wiping the data from the first.
So at what point will courts believe the person who gives them the access code?
Let the W3C say whatever they want about DRM in HTML5. Heck, they can take a page out of the Microsoft Windows book and require a ham sandwich. But they can't force all browsers to implement all the "requirements".
I—for one—will look for my browsers to be HTML5 + DRM free. And if that means my browser isn't technically HTML5 compliant, I'm comfortable with that.
So taking this "intent implies copyright" logic to the extreme, we will be living in a world where any photo that is released will be accompanied by some boilerplate language along the lines of "I completely and totally intended to take this photo, and therefore I and I alone own the copyright on it". Even for a frame or clip of a surveillance video. "Yes, I knew that this particular location was very likely to have police brutality happen, and I angled it in just such a way to get this particular shot, so you may not use it to report on the story unless you pay me royalties".
Another solution: keep original private; only release your transformative edit
If you are the sole possessor of the original, then you can make edits (crop, color, contrast, brightness, levels, retouching, etc) so as to render that version copyrightable. I don't believe there is anything that would compel you to release the original.
What about trailcams / camera traps? Or surveillance video.
At some point the courts are going to have to decide also on cases where a camera is set up in a location and either captures images automatically (e.g. surveillance) or via a trigger that is tripped by a subject entering the scene (trailcams / camera traps).
I'm curious to see what would happen if Apple's good faith attempt to comply backfires. If I were an Apple engineer with a gun to my head, I might be so distracted by the sheer pressure of the situation as to invert a logical statement.
"Sorry, you cannot see the source code. We securely erased it the instant after we complied it to prevent it from getting out into the wild."
IANAL, but if I had a copy of that video, I would do some VH1 "pop up video" edits on top of it along the lines of "did you know this guy killed himself because of the Chronic traumatic encephalopathy he suffered from playing in the NFL?" and "can you believe the NFL thinks the worldwide lifetime rights for this video are only $30k? I guess that limits the damages they could be awarded by a court". Every frame of that video would have some commentary on it obscuring the action in some way and making statements that the NFL may or may not want to be associated with.
Completely transformative, no money being made, and since the NFL has no market for this particular video, there is no market to impact by its release. Although just to be safe, I'd release it to bittorrent and to servers outside the US, and would not be the actual person who did the work or release it.
With that being the only copy of Superbowl 1 on the net, how valuable would the NFL suddenly find a clean copy?