Quote:
Originally Posted by VGeorgie
It ABSOLUTELY says this. The case hinged on the subscriber, who has legal access rights to the material - in this case by merit of paying a subscription fee - makes his or her own copy. The physical location of the copy is irrelevant. The court points out several times that "the use of a distinct copy affects the transmit clause."
|
but that my point and that why it exactly the same as the torrent swarm
cable vision used the public internet to deliver the copy too
the public nature of the transmission did not invalidate the timeshifting.
it was not a completely private network, with dedicated hard bound lines to your house,
cablevisions cloud included the internet, local bgp peers, local cable loops the settop box and the remote servers.
many of those parts were public in nature.
the point was that transmission not the broadcast was public
the transmission delivered a private copy, which was played in the privacy of the subcribers home.
the fact that it was possible if you had the skill to hack the data stream and take a copy without paying did not make cable vision offering illegal.
Quote:
|
The distinct copy is private. It can't be anything but.
|
but that the point the distinct copy in the case of the swarm is also private
if i press play, on the copy i downloaded, it play for me only
if i press pause it pauses for me only
the swarm is public, but the distinct copy is private
just like cable vision transmission is public but the distinct copy that is being played is private.