Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
this had to do with timeshifting. The right to move the viewing time from monday to tuesday.
|
I didn't see any mentionings of either backup or timeshift in the court ruling - so out of context I assumed it's backup. But if you believe it's timeshifting - OK, what does that change in the core of argument?
Quote:
|
none of those are true and you adding the conditions the bits must go thru you is just as bullshit.
|
Where did I say the bits must go through to you?
Quote:
|
and your shifting from one fair use to another to justify that bullshit because you know that if they were talking about backup the sms single shared point ruling would come into effect and validated.
|
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote:
that action would be covered two ways, the seeder would have a right to create a backup on my machine, and the timeshifted leacher would have a right to get the copy since his aquiring would be covered by fair use.
If the leacher was not timeshifting then his part of the transaction would be illegal
which again is the point i made
go after the leacher without the fair use right.
|
That will fly if:
1. It is confirmed in court that sharing of copies made for timeshifting between the users who have fair use rights to make such copies is legal.
2. It is confirmed in court that seeder (provided that he has a right to timeshift to begin with) is not liable of public broadcasting if at least one of his leechers was not a legal timeshifter.