Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
First, the fair use argument in question isn't a "law;" it is a legal precedent that informs the court's interpretation of a law. There's a significant difference between the two. 
Second, just because I've said that in some circumstances, when the facts of a case support it, the fair use of "time-shifting" argument can prevail, that's not the same thing as saying that I believe it applies universally in copyright infringement cases, or can be employed successfully when there are other factors involved, like public display, public performance, or an illicit means of obtaining the copyrighted material in the first place.
I'm as anti-piracy as they come, my friend. I just believe that intellectual honesty is important, so when a person with whom I might disagree on a subjective issue says something that is objectively true, I feel compelled to give them credit for the truth of that statement. |
here here
however one case you might want to look at is cablevision vs 20th century fox
the destinction between public transmission and public performance has been clearly defined
the lower court did not recognize the difference and criminalized the timeshifting in a cloud by considering in a public performance
the appeals court (thanks to a filing by the EFF) recognized that public transmission that makes a local private copy which is then played independently is not a public performance but a private performance publically transmitted.
the legal definitition is very important for the issue of torrents given the way the technology works.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud
the full transcript of the ruling is also available
and it was upheld by the supreme court too.