Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
"And, finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Cablevision was engaging in unauthorized public performances. The way the Cablevision system was designed, every time a consumer decided to record a given show, Cablevision would store a separate copy of that program, and each of those copies could be played back only by the consumer who recorded it. The plaintiffs urged the court to hold that if 1000 copies of the season finale of Desperate Housewives are played back in 1000 households, that's a public performance. The court instead correctly concluded that each of those copies is playable in only one household, which means that we're talking about 1000 private viewings, not a public performance."
If that "cloud" is a publicly accessed torrent tracker, that would consitute public performace and is an infingement.
|
The court instead correctly concluded that each of theise copies is playable in only one household, which means we're talking about 1000 private viewings, not a public performance.
the copy i download from the swarm is playable from my household not in yours, you have to create your own private copy to play it in your household. torrents meet that condition.
BTW your trying to argue that shared point of access automatically invalidates the fair use right. However SMS (shared image of the os and software for backup) are legal. A right granted to one fair use, has to be granted to all, because quite simple all fair use are equal under the law.
Quote:
The ruling you're reffering to only applies to a company that made their private storage, which only a customer who uploaded this video can access.
If rapidshare only allowed those users who uploaded to access thier files, using username and password, that would be much less of a problem - mainstream would still probably sue, but we'd surely be OK with it.
|
but you don't see such restrictions explictly listed in that ruling. You don't see an override to the shared point ruling for SMS server. The best you can say is that it might be illegal, not that it is.
the winner will be who has more precedents supporting it when all the cases are EXPLICTLY referenced.
so far every win by the copyright side, only happens when they explictly ignore such rules so none of those count.
Quote:
|
Tube sites are even more of an unauthorized public performance, which is not covered by fair use.
|
why, are you playing from the stream, or the private copy that is being buffered to your computer.
try pausing a video wait for the red bar to go across the entire timeline and then disconnect from the internet (disconnect from the broadcast). See if you can still play it.