Most tales of business disruption these days have a decidedly corporate edge. For instance, Netflix often takes the mantle of being an usurper even if there's little chance that a company worth more than $122 billion would really do anything to make the content industry anything less than a profitable endeavor — at least for itself and partners.
Back in 1998, with many harboring "Y2K" visions of technological disaster, Congress updated copyright laws for a new millennium where reproduction promised to become easier than ever. The anti-hacking section of the DMCA meant that the content industry could safeguard whatever they distributed with encryption, and anyone cracking access controls would be violating the law.
at a news conference that Russians would find and disseminate Hillary Clinton's emails. The case then sat dormant for nearly three years until U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan on June 27 rejected a motion to dismiss. That decision now means the Trump Administration is defending the anti-hacking copyright law.
But when looking specifically at Green's security research and Huang's NeTV2 invention, Sullivan does see an adequately alleged First Amendment claim and "alleged facts sufficient to show that the DMCA provisions, as applied to their intended conduct, burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests."Now, both plaintiffs are leaning into the court's ruling and telling the judge that they are likely to win the case.