File-Sharing Services Held Liable for Clients' Theft

File-Sharing Services Held Liable for Clients' Theft: "'We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties,' Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court."

The court is clearly trying to disattach the ability to do an infrigement "act" from the intent to do that "act". But what is that "act"? In the use of TIVO it is clearly the intent of the device that one make a copy of a copyrighted work. If that is the "act" of infringement, then there is a crime. But if the intent of TIVO is that you merely accomplish the legal and intended use of the property, but within a different time period, then is there really any infrigement?