Quote:
Originally Posted by Due
And another interesting fact:
The brief also argues that the Second Circuit was well-reasoned. Since the Second Circuit found that the playback of programs from the remote DVR wasn?t a ?public performance,? the plaintiffs argued that this opened the door to all video-on-demand services also falling outside the realm of copyright. Again, the Solicitor General counters that this is an unfounded concern. Since the court limited its holding to situations where a unique copy was made with each recording, and where only the individual who made the recording could watch it, the business model of VOD would not be undermined if the opinion stood.
Sounds like your torrents is awfully similar to a VOD service? What makes you confident that your torrents could not be defined as being a VOD service ?
|
because VOD services are a broadcast based system, you are playing the stream, it a one to one stream but it still a stream. The model control is dependent on it being a stream otherwise it would not be on demand.
you don't make a private copy and don't play from that private copy.
that the exact difference this court case established when it defined public transmission as different then public broadcast.
even so the ruling could not cover all VOD anyway since the fair use of timeshifting requires you to have paid/given the right to the content in the first place. so even if someone came up with some sort of private copy version of VOD it still would do nothing but allow people who BOUGHT the content to gain access to the content they paid for at a later date.