This is a perfectly logical strategy. Since you know for sure that their customer base will be lowered. This reduces the enemies funds and with this type of system once they shut down the feed or pirate alternative to your system also shuts down. In other words by helping your competition's customers pirate, you kill a customer and then get all the pirates after your competitor stops providing the steal-able signal. Now with the monopoly you gouge your loyal customers, those from the competition, the pirates from the competition and the people that left you to pirate from the competition.
So in the "rare" case that somebody were to say hack an email account in order to access another computer however would most likely raise a different verdict. Basically the court finally got a technology case right for a change.
As a fairly recent graduate, I never met one professor that was truly biased against wikipedia. Sure you couldn't use wikipedia as a source, but the same professors would tell you to start there and work your way back through the references that wikipedia quoted, and then any references that were quoted in whatever you found there. To be fair that is the point of wikipedia. It gives a quick overview, but it links you to the source of the information which is likely where you will find what you really need if you are doing any sort of in depth research.
Actually if you think about it, it could have a potential use. Instead of multiple bills you can now get a single bill. Comcast now offers: internet, cable, phone, and movie rentals all on a single bill! Less paper bills and less hassle than calling 4 companies when I have a problem has to have some value.
Sorry Mike but I disagree with you, this is completely about changing the law, it just isn't Google that is doing the changing. Viacom is simply trying to change the law so that safe harbor protections wont exist, so saying that this case isn't about changing the law is completely off.