You touched on it a little but glossed over it in the podcast, focusing instead on other aspects. I realize before this gets under way that I agree people should watch it on the official website, I always do so please leave the red haring issues at the door and remain focused on my point. So Zack if you are in law school you should be able to tell me, why is it illegal? Does it being on the internet change copyright law? Ever sense the nabster rulings there has been precedent in this kind of lawsuit and as it has monied interest behind it they usually succeed but I deny the legal basis of it.Not to get into to much legalize so I will try to use as little latin as possible xD.
Basically you can record a movie off the TV, you can then watch that movie later as many times as you want, with or without commercials entirely within your discretion. You can then lend this video out to a friend or show anyone you want you just can't make money off this. There is nothing in the law that says you actually need to be friends with the person you give the movie to, nor is there a limit on how many people you can give it to. So suddenly because it is over the internet this action becomes illegal? Or are you arguing that this action should have been illegal all along and it simply was never written down, passed, or enforced and now should be.
Going back to the nabster case, the argument was that if this action is allowed to continue it will bankrupt the music industry which you touch on is the argument toy is using, but is that even an argument that should be considered? It would suck yes and everyone deserves such a right but that fact does not change written law, which should be applied blindly. Maybe the law should be changed but to just ignore it because a certain industry might get hurt is indeed disturbing.
Heck your probably still in school and will probably be a better lawyer than I because you are better at ignoring actual law and sucking up to industry, the makings of any good corporate lawyer. For me my principles get in the way, which is never a good thing for lawyers.
First: It's "Napster" not "nabster"
Second: I'd never, ever be a corporate lawyer. Just no, I'm not pro-corporation, I'm pro-law. I don't side with FUNimation because their a corporation, I side with them because they have a property and other people are stealing that property for their own use and to additionally distribute it to others via a torrenting service (which acts peer to peer and thus it is like you're getting a bootleg VHS and distributing it to others as well, at least in part).
Third: Copyright Law doesn't change on the Internet, though I'm sure there's a whole set of policies for Internet usage. I haven't taken Copyright Law, and I've mentioned many, many times that I am speaking from a very limited perspective. However, what you are saying is utterly incoherent. I can't grasp what point you're trying to make, and if I understand it correctly, it's flawed.
The reason I'm pro-FUNimation here is because there are people in that company who will lose their jobs because of the proliferation of fansubs. Many, many hundreds already have: VIZ recently shut down it's NY branch and downsized significantly, ADV shut down, and many other companies no longer exist because of this. I care about people, just not the people who are taking advantage of this situation.