View Single Post
Old 08-17-2009, 10:19 AM  
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus View Post
Of course I do see such restrictions explicitly listed in the court ruling:

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/st...n-decision.pdf

"And because the RS-DVR system, as designed, only makes transmissions to one subscriber using a copy made by that subscriber, we believe that the universe of people capable of receiving an RS-DVR transmission is the single subscriber whose self-made copy is used to create that transmission... Given that each RS-DVR transmission is made to a given subscriber using a copy made by that subscriber, we conclude that such a transmission is not “to the public,”..."



each of these copies is the keyword - read the court ruling above. Not one copy for all viewers which will consitute a public performace, but one private copy for each users, created by this user.



If that copy was created by you, uploaded to the swarm by you, and can by downloaded/veiwed only by you - that's fair use and is not a public performace (read the court ruling above).

Also read this (yet another quote from the court ruling):

16 Professor Nimmer’s examination of this definition is
17 particularly pertinent: “if the same copy . . . of a given
18 work is repeatedly played (i.e., ‘performed’) by different
19 members of the public, albeit at different times, this
20 constitutes a ‘public’ performance.” 2 M. Nimmer, § 8.14
21 [C][3], at 8-142 (emphasis in original). . . . Although
22 Maxwell’s has only one copy of each film, it shows each copy
23 repeatedly to different members of the public. This
24 constitutes a public performance.

28 Unfortunately, neither the Redd Horne court nor Prof. Nimmer
29 explicitly explains why the use of a distinct copy affects the
30 transmit clause inquiry. But our independent analysis confirms
31 the soundness of their intuition: the use of a unique copy may
-41-
1 limit the potential audience of a transmission and is therefore
2 relevant to whether that transmission is made “to the public.”



So how exactly buffering a public stream into your computer makes this publicly available stream not a public performance?
your trying to make the arguement that lost.
The public stream came from the in feed for the cable company it was redirected and partitioned off based on the individual users request.

that is exactly what happens when i connect to the swarm and partition away an unique copy for my own viewing that action providing the stream, or providing the partitioning service is not an infringement.

That the point the reversal of the ruling.

However don't be a complete moron and claim that i am justifying wholesale copyright infringement. That only eliminates the liablity from the host/stream provider.

The user could still be liable, if he has no viewing rights, then his actions would be infringing. just like if i hacked the cablevision servers and hijacked some cached copy of the show without paying the cable bill that grants me the right.

again
leave the seeders alone
leave the trackers alone
leave the leachers with a fair use right alone
go after the leachers without the fair use right.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Last edited by gideongallery; 08-17-2009 at 10:21 AM..
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote