seriously you need to read the ruling
your adding conditions which were not defined in the ruling.

there is no hard line between the persons home and those serves the cloud defines a lot of public middle steps.

the other machines in the swarm between the original seeder and the ultimate leecher are those middle steps.

it just so happens it a mesh relationship vs a client server relationship

that all.

it like when you tried to demand that accept commercials in the official timeshifting choice.

offical with commercials you could fast forward over vs torrented with no commercials.

seeding is not an active process it a passive/responsive process, it making available and only making available.


if anything putting all the pieces in a single self contained container (garbage bag) is more actively making available because your grouping it all together in one place.

that actually the opposite of how seeding works.

the fact is until the pieces are put together IN THE RIGHT ORDER you never have a working copy of the file

until that point it nothing more than a transient cache of data.



except if people made copies of those pieces and put those pieces together

remember fair use is the only authorized non licienced way to get around the monopoly granted to the copyright holder

disposing of copyright material is not a protected fair use

it may seem stupid but bad shredding is more of a copyright infringement since it both not fair use or licienced.

Thieving is thieving no matter how anyone tries to rationalize it.

so tivo is illegal..?

what if i run to the bathroom during commercials ? will i get sued ?

interesting how your making this statement to justify going after people who didn't take any of the copyright holders shit

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-...onduct-110610/

i hope john steele gets an ass raping at least equal to his UK counter parts

What if you use the SKIP ADS function built into the software? Maybe the feds will kick your door in. Be scared.

The problem is usually that when you download it you share it hence you serve it to people who may not have paid for this tv show.

That's distribution of copyrighted material. Buying a TV show doesn't give you the right to share it.

With that said, I haven't checked the actual lawsuits so I can't say what they're suing for. I think it's a great way to get things under control and it will help serve as a warning :thumbsup

If you can make some money misleading a couple of thieves then why not ? The market wouldn't exist without them so it will regulate itself as things get cleaned up :pimp

My first comment is that I find it frustrating in general that in most of your posts your sources are always TorrentFreak which only publishes a portion of a complaint, judgement or whatever in support of their clearly biased stance.

We have not done end-user litigation, but to comment on some of the these articles, I have to make the analogy to every other crime where some times innocent people are investigated & become suspects. This is why there is due process in the legal system. I'm sure the vast majority of those who end up in end-user litigation aren't "innocent", but of course Torrent Freak probably won't be doing an article about the vast majority that knowingly and purposely infringed on copyrighted content in order to avoid paying for it.

Surfers who join pay sites never get sued or arrested.

:2 cents:

except with torrents i am never giving anyone a complete working copy of the show

no one gets anything but a transient cache from me

in fact until they put those pieces in the right order no working copy exists

that the fair use of cacheing

if you want to change the law to invalidate that you can kiss the internet good bye because that how tcp/ip works too.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh No
1)
You are working together with multiple individuals to provide a full working copy, you do not have to know them.
That can be purused through one or more of the following items:
conspiracy to commit piracy.
Statutory conspiracy
conspiracy to defraud copyright holders

That can lead to conspiracy to defraud the US tax attorney (no sales tax collected here)

2)
An Individual may download the full copies from you directly.

That's just plain illegal distribution of copyrighted data and easy to fight :2 cents:

The fun part is that if you fight the IRS you'll loose even when you are right.

Personally I'd try and hit people as hard as I can if I was fighting copyright, conspiracy to.... is an awesome tool that can be used and misused in dozens of ways :thumbsup

You can't fight piracy by going after each and every person, you have to set out examples of the people you do go after.

and like i said

if that bullshit arguement worked

you just killed the internet

because every single node in the network running tcp/ip packets represents multiple individuals conspiring to make full working copy.

by definition that how every picture, video, and line of text is spread across the internet, in tcp/ip packets.



except the only way a copyright holder could collect evidence for that crime is if they were the downloader

the downloader has a right to download it (authorized agent) which means the seeder isn't giving it to someone who doesn't have a right to it

that exactly the same situation as me loaning my betamax cassette of knight rider to a friend who had TV/VCR/NBC in his home.

the second you put a third party in the mix, the seeder no longer gives away any working copies at all, he gives 1/2 the pieces to person a and 1/2 to person b and then he is done.

The difference is the intend.
It's a hell of a lot easier to prove intend when an individual user install an application where the purpose is to only route specific types of "packages" through the internet to combine them into a complete product where the usage and/or distribution of that complete product is unlawful.

It's not by any chance compare-able to legitimate infrastructure providers. On top of that an infrastructure provider can be found guilty if they knowingly let their users / customers / agents misuse their networks.

The difference is the infrastructure providers do not know exactly what passes through, they may have an idea but the private p2p user can see exactly what passes through by looking in their client software.


That's not 100% correct, while the investigator may have the right to download the content the investigator may be able to see who your peers are to determine you are seeding it to 3rd parties or the investigator may be able to get a court order to investigate your computer based on their findings from where they can gather their evidence for a full blown case.
Besides, just because you are an investigator doesn't mean you have the rights to use a full version of what you are sharing.

Throw a 3rd person in it and it's a conspiracy, look it up.

And it's not the same as a cassette, you can lend your friend a cassette with knight rider to a friend but you cannot take a copy of your cassette and give him the original or the copy, then you duplicated and distributed the content. You are allowed to make backups of your cassette but if you let someone borrow 1 they have to take all backups too.

you just made my point for me

ever since timeshifting in a cloud has been validated by supreme court the intent of p2p user is no longer just infringement

so all of the point you made about the infrastructure provider apply to the p2p transaction

my intent is to use the swarm as a timeshifting/backup cloud, for content i paid for

the only way you can make that illegal is claim that even 1 infringement happening anywhere within the transaction invalidates all the transactions within the process

guess what same logic would have to apply to the internet, intent be damed.



again supreme court decision to allow timeshifitng in a cloud changes this again
the process is not infringing by it very nature
there are both legitimate and illegitimate actions within the very same swarm

and the seeders have NO IDEA which people in the swarm are which.

wrong tpc/ip has information in the header that tells you what is bieng passed, what they don't know is weather it infringing or non infringing,

see above.

but you do have a right to download it so that validates the transaction

except you eliminate the crime at the same time which invalidates the conspiricy too
look it up

re read the testimony of JV when the mpaa was attempting to tarriff VCR because the fair use of timeshifting went too far

everything you are saying is not allowed, was explictly complained about (along with making commercial free copies)

those rights were all established with timeshifting right in the past, stop trying to take them away from the new technology.

:1orglaugh:thumbsup

Not really no. I'm not trying to outlaw P2P / file sharing / time shiting / backup cloud or whatever new word you decide to call it. Legitimate usage I have no issues with legal use of P2P. It's not at all compare-able with the internet as a whole.

If infringements happens because of something you do your responsible.

By your logic we should outlaw roads because people are speeding on them.

P.S. I love how you say "not JUST infringement"
Cloud may not by it's nature be illegal however it can be used for illegal purposes which doesn't actually make the cloud illegal just the action itself.

Again you can drive a car but it's neither the cars or the roads fault if you commit a crime while driving.

Nobody have the right to download anything they do not have the right to possess so the crime have not been invalidated




In Denmark they managed to tariff CDs, this specific part I have not looked into, however my common sense tells me that since the CD's was tariffed the purpose of the cd's was to distribute the copies hence made it legal. If they are not tariffed it means the purpose of the CDs was not to distribute copies.

yes you are you originally said



your arguement was because i give pieces of content to 1/2% of the population which doesn't have at least 1 tv i should have a right to use torrents as a timeshifting device.

even i have no control or even knowledge of which people in the swarm is infringing

instead of going after the individual without a right, your saying you should take away my right to timeshift using the swarm.

even though i bought the show

even though sharing (tape trading) was covered by the original right when it was established


idiot that your arguement not mine

i want you to only go after the speeder/ the .5% of the population which didn't buy the tv shows

leave the 99.5% of the people who did alone because their actions are nothing but the shit that the original timeshifting right allowed.


you couldn't speed if cars didn't go that fast
you couldn't speed if roads didn't exist

as you said if infringement happens because of something you do your responsible

my arguement is the exact opposite









moron the tarriff wasn't a negotiation made to grant us timeshifting rights

the right was granted by the court
they mpaa documented all the rights that court ruling gave the average consumer
and bitched that unless the government stepped in to change the law the industry of broadcast tv would die.

your trying to add conditions that courts already ruled out

conditions that the testimony proves the mpaa knew were granted (becuase they complained those "rights" would kill the indistry)

the fact that the congress told the mpaa to fuck off, doesn't invalidate any of those court granted rights.

i cant afford to download...

No I said make money on a thief. I guess you associated the thief to be all P2P users, what does that say about you ?

I'm sorry I did not fully read through your reference, I have now and this is one of the key points

The way the Cablevision system was designed, every time a consumer decided to record a given show, Cablevision would store a separate copy of that program, and each of those copies could be played back only by the consumer who recorded i

When you seed in the swarm you
1: Do not know if the user is allowed to view this copy
2: The same copy can be viewed by multiple users
3: Each consumer have not recorded their own program

On top of that, from a memorandum I have from several years ago you cannot make a copy of a tv show available to a user of a cloud (remote) DVR that was recorded previous to the user requesting it, it must be recorded AFTER the request was made and recorded for that user specifically. (this may be wrong or have changed, I do not know but that's what I would go based on)

no you did not you started posting how i did not have a right to timeshift shows i paid for because i was sharing (distributing) as well


your exact words

you point blank attacked timeshifting via a cloud


read the case moron because you making arguement that have already been ruled invalid

the arguement that public components invalidate the right was denied (they argued it wasn't good enough because it didn't have a hard line between the house and the data center)

the fact is every arguement you just made has already been invalidated in that case


secondly the highlighted person is dead wrong

you do not play the same copy

if i paused my copy it would not pause for anyone in the swarm

the court case defined the distinction between public transmission and public broadcast

making a private copy from a public transmission was ruled to be legal

that exactly what both swarm and the cablevision system does

a local copy is made, that local copy is played, only one site plays each local copy.

Thanks that's my point. You do not have the right to replicate the local copy and it's a cloud only if the cloud stored copy disappears when the seed/torrent is removed which doesn't happen.

idiot

that exactly WHY the timeshifting is legal

they don't broadcast it from the data center/cloud

it exactly because a copy is made on the local machine AND PLAYED FROM THERE

that the normal public broadcast rules don't apply

you are either the stupidest person alive

or your deliberately misrepresenting what i just said on purpose.

oh and btw in the cable vision version if the cloud version disappeared the local copy stayed around too

it wasn't auto deleted.

so your arguement is total and utter bullshit

AHA!

If it's your cloud and/or swarm you control it and it's storage.

Since you are incapable of removing the data or make modifications you can't claim it's yours hence you are sharing it. That's called piracy

Cable Vision control THEIR cloud.

You do not control "YOUR" cloud.

Figure out the difference my learning friend :)

no they don't the cloud in question included the public internet

if the courts had AGREED with fox that solution required a hard line between the house and the data center you could have made that arguement (control by cablevision)

But courts rejected that requirement


your attempted to argue a point that has already been ruled out.



That total and utter bullshit.

idiot

the timeshifting right is granted to the USER of the cable vision PVR


that user has no ownership of the cloud

it "owned" ("" since it included public internet as part of the cloud) by the service provider
cable vision.

so again if this arguement had any validity

cable vision would have lost

they didn't so that proves this arguement is total and utter bullshit too.

No, you are comparing apples and oranges.

You'll loose for not being able to control your time-shifted content, it's storage and who may access it. I never at any point said there had to be a direct link nor that the internet couldn't be used

Cablevision designed THEIR platform to let THEIR customer, the time-shifter, control their cloud which is why they did not need to license the stored data for distribution.

That's the difference between you and cablevision, that invalidates several of your previous arguments.

Unless you have something new to say I'll let you have the final answer in your next reply, your just running in circles :thumbsup

i am running in circles because you making up insanely stupid statements to justify your bogus position

now your arguing that you can only get fair use rights from a single corporate entity

well that bullshit and you know it

dozens of open source cd rippers exist
dozens of dvd rippers exist

dozens of open source pvr exist

those plateforms are designed to provide fair use services (the last being timeshifting) without a corporate structure defining it use

the same is true for a swarm, it just the open platform (think open source) version of the fair use right

fact is it all legal because fair use is a blanket exemption to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder

read the copyright act no where does it mandate control, or even a single responsible party PERIOD.

the exclusive rights of the copyright holder exist not withstanding fair use

for fair use there is no exclusive rights, it is effectively public domain for that scope.

btw moron what exactly about the statement


do you not understand

the cable vision client only has control over the local copy

exactly the same as the swarm.

I'll write it slowly this time so it'll be easier for you to comprehend.

If your bringing nothing new to the table I'll just let you go on with your rampage.

Rambling on how dvd rippers and fair usage justifies your file sharing and now starting to call it public domain goes beyond me.

when your right from the very begining and your arguing with an idiot who keeps dancing around desperately to justify his position you have to keep going back to the same point

the court case proves my point so i keep going back too it.

you originally said
i pointed out that was insanely stupid because

1. seeder never gives away a complete working copy of the file,
2. .5% of the swarm wouldn't have a right to the content and
3. tcp/ip packets work on the same practise

so if you made the seeding of pieces to .5 % who didn't have a right voided the entire fair use right, you just destroyed the internet because copyright infringement happens because of tcp/ip too.

you have been dancing around making up more excuses to try and justify your bogus idea of copyright

now your trying to claim that you need control over the content in the swarm to have a fair use right.

that lack of control voids fair use

no where in the definition of fair use is control defined as a requrement

it the most insane arguement because your actually going against the very wording of the copyright act.


nowhere whatsoever does it say anything about any type of personal control being required for a fair use to exist.

nowhere whatsoever does it say that it must be private for the fair use to exist

if it meets those 4 conditions PERIOD it fair use

and using the cloud to move the viewing time for content you purchased from monday to tuesday (timeshfiting using the cloud0 meets those 4 conditions to the exact same degree as using a vcr to move the viewing from monday to tuesday.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh AND microsoft!

That's hilarious!

P.S. you just admitted the infringement

Are you going to defend yourself in court if you get sued or are you going to fight it together with microsoft who incorporated the tcp/ip protocols making it possible and the us government who build the internet? Sounds like they are equal partners in this

GideonGallery - You are fighting a losing battle. I've seen Due argue with phone support over a $5 charge for 3 hours because it entertained him.

ok smart guy then explain your positiion then

the supreme court explictly ruled in this case

that making a private copy from a Public transmission was still entitled to fair use protection based on the use of that private copy

how exactly is the transmission public if as you claim it only fair use if it controled by a single company.
By definition a single company controling it would make it private.

I think he is arguing that with this case if you tell the DVR to record a show it makes a copy of that show and only you have access to it Only you can play it thus it is a private copy.

If you seed a show via torrent you are sharing that copy with many other people therefore it is no longer private.

except that private copy is transmitted over the PUBLIC internet from the data center

this was the hard line arguement that was denied

the private local copy is made from the public transmission

it is not a public broadcast just because the transmission is public

you just reverse the very ruling of this case

the local copy i get from the PUBLIC swarm is just as PUBLIC internet

a bit by bit packet sniffer and the transmit to address is all i need to take an unauthorized copy from cablevision system.

that person not the timeshifter/cablevision is responsible

if cablevision only had the right if they perfectly prevented any unauthorized access they would have won the case.


so again i will ask the question

Really ? So now your file sharing is OK because you can package sniff the data otherwise from cablevision ?

I already explained the difference in how it's recorded, distributed and stored. I never said any data had to be with a specific corporate or private entity to be considered a private copy.

It doesn't matter in the end since you focus on the theory and ideology for the general usage which doesn't legalize the actual usage.

You may also want to look into the law of agency as your swarm could be considered your agents since you claim they provide you private storage, if it could be determined that you with common sense would realize it's not the case or that it's in other ways being abused in ways you should be aware of it could be ruled that you adopted the act of your agent so strict liability could be enforced.

And really, what would a judge say if you claim in front of him "it's no different than if I used a package sniffer to get my copy that way"

Your arguments are based on ideology and several unsupported facts or speculations (0.005% unauthorized usage is an outrages statement) which is why there is no real reason to undermine that statement. I think it's more interesting just to point out new ways to fight your "case"

If I was the person fighting these cases my goal would be to take settlements when I can and if people fight I'd aim for personal bankruptcy of the individual to set out examples to make future settlements easier.

and i never said that you did

we are talking about the PUBLIC transmission not the private copy

again the judege ruled and the supreme court upheld


the public internet is the public transmission part of the cablevision cloud

the swarm is the public transmission part of torrent cloud.

you argued that second public transmission invalidates the fair use right because of a lack of control

the same lack of control exists in the cable vision public transmission based on the very design of tcp/ip.

you keep dodging the question because you know it proves your wrong

1. It wasn't the supreme court that ruled in the Cablevision case, at least not according to the article you linked in this thread it was 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. According to this story the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

2. The way I read and understand the case here is why it was a success for Cablevision. When you push the record button on your remote the system makes a single copy of the program you want to record. They saw that as being no different that a person pressing the record button on a VCR. That the storage device was in a remote location made no difference. The reason for this is that there was no human interaction needed in the process. You press record, the system records your show. When you go to watch it it plays back that same show. It is just you and technology and not other humans are involved.

With the bit torrent swarm that is not the case. Many humans have to be involved. For you to back up your favorite show/movie or whatever to the swarm the other users have to, at the very least, seek out a torrent file, download that file, open that file with their bit torrent client and possibly then tell their client where to store the downloaded data. So there is much human interaction needed. Your backup cannot exist without the interaction of others.

3. These others are getting copies of the show/movie from your recorded copy, not their own. The case itself says if 1000 people record the same show the system makes 1000 copies of that show. If they all play them back at the same time it is then 1000 private viewings. If you are seeding a show and sharing it with the swarm you could end up with 1000's of people all getting copies of a show that they themselves did not record. They are all watching the same person's copy which could be looked upon as a public viewing.

That's a pretty good summary, + user cannot "record" a show from the past, he'll have to wait for the rerun + if user hit record half way through a show user will record only half the show.

Now that this is said again we will start over blaming the structure of tcp/ip, then caching. dvd-rippers, then some betamax cassettes etc etc etc

We can also get into some arguments the data is PUT INTO the cloud by the user or the data is FETCHED by the cloud by the cloud (ie the cloud download it), in theory it could be a good argument however since a user will be capable of exiting the cloud, when he exited the cloud he is just "an individual", at this point the cloud provided a copy of it's data. If the cloud is just a cloud without an owner (will the cloud remain if the original seeder exit? ) it's a conspiracy case if the cloud vanishes when the "owner" exit I'd look more into the law of agency as the cloud would be an agent acting on behalf of the seeder

And just for the reference Cablevision is not doing a public transmission on the public internet, cablevision is doing a private transmission (user is authenticated through his playback device) on a public network (the internet)

In reality we are going through the same arguments over an dover again and I have yet to see anything that could make the technology guilty of a crime and I doubt it's going to change in this thread. :thumbsup