Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
I still think a swarm of users is different than a cloud of servers. If you read that article you link to above that covers the ruling one of the defenses they successfully made was that when a users pushes record on their remote one copy of the program they are recording is made on the server. If 1000 people record that show 1000 copies are made and each person plays back their person saved copy.
With a swarm (which I assume you mean torrent) you are actually distributing the work out to dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of people. Sure you are only giving each person a small piece, but to me that is still distribution. If you are downloading, but not uploading to the swarm then essentially you are taking a small bit from many users. To use the articles example you would be taking a small piece from the 1000's of saved copies, not just from the one you created.
There is a difference.
|
one you need to read all of the case briefs
the internet is used for parts of the distribution of the content in the case example
and if you know anything about tcp/ip packets you know that by the very nature of the protocol it broken into pieces to handle the transmission
2. if you want to argue that giving away a piece of something is just the same as giving away the entire copy for the purpose of distribution you going to wipe out the internet (see tcp/ip above)
3. if you apply the rule to digital material your going to have to apply it to physical content which means doing things like shredding documents and putting them in the garbage is going to copyright infringement if someone dumpster dives and puts those pieces together.
4. which means this type of setup case is going to happen a lot, better get ready to spend 20 k on a military grade shredder that turns the document into a fine powder or you going to lose your house the next time you shred a document.