:1orglaugh

sure it is
part one is the settop box on the users local tv

that the front end, where the end use starts the transaction of timeshifting. That initiates the request in question

that is transmitted beyond that person network to the cloud thru the internet

the cloud is the entire backend hosted of the internet.
the collective combination of machine, network etc that are necessary to get the copy down to the settop box

if the copy was never accessible from the set top box it would not be timeshifting would it.
in fact it would be totally useless.

So the cloud and internet are basically the same?

Thanks :)

the cloud would be the combination of the internet, and the private network
think everything beyond your network administrators control (0r in this case beyond your house)

it could be private network and the internet
it could be private network and internet and the virtual circuit you create across other companies networks (bgp peers that cablevision would have across cox local loop)

So when you're connecting to the torrent tracker through your usual PC, are you in the cloud or in the internet?

So the performance that happens from the file in not public. And the seeder do not transmit the whole file thus a full copy working copy of the work is not created, meaning his actions are not an infringement.

Does that mean that I can simply split a file into say 100 pieces and put it on my server for everyone to download?

That's not public performance because that's a file, not stream.
That's not creation of full copies because none of the files represent the work a whole.
That's not creation of an unauthorized copy because I bought this movie and have the right to timshift backup whatever.

Is that correct?

well the swarm is the cloud so the question is a little confusing.

When you first connect to the tracker, you are on the internet, but not in the cloud. The original handshake would be like knocking on the door kind of thing.

Once you are part of the swarm, reporting your pieces the cloud would be all the different machines you connect to, each machine would be a piece of that puzzle, each machine would be acting as a temporary and incomplete cache of the file you want.

It would be very public but it would not be a performance.

once you completed the file you could have a local private copy to play, but the hashing of the file, would still keep it a temporay and incomplet cahce of the file for everyone else (the nature of the pieces). For the purpose of the tracker (assuming private and involved tracker) it would see 1024 pieces stored on machine 102.143.32.5 but each individual machine would only see the pieces they requested. so if five machines were connect to you the five pieces would be seen by each machine respectively.

This weird mesh of virtual connections would be the cloud.


the cablevision equivalent would include your settop box, the internet, the private network, the satalites and cable networks owned by cable visions, and any local loops owned but virtually leased from "competitors".

the cable marketplace is very similar to the telco marketplace after deregulation. with local baby bells owning the local loop and other companies creating Virtual circuits for their customer across those own networks.

there is a difference between your example and the swarm example i gave you
your example here the people would get all the pieces DIRECTLY from you while the swarm you give the pieces away to multiple people and they share those pieces between them in transactions completely beyond your control (INDIRECTLY).

While the indirect transactional situation would be outside the scope of the actus rea, the direct would not.

It would require a stretching of this ruling and a couple of other to make that arguement. Is it possible yes, and i suspect that youtube will be attempting to do that , because the cache process of the flash streaming does do that.

will they be able to maybe. can that arguement be made explictly now, no.

1. Is there a law or a court decision that confirms that sharing of copies made for timeshifting between different users is legal?

If there is, does that mean that I can print say 100 copies of a copyrighted work, put them in a box near my house and let every one of my neighbors to take one to provide redundancy of the backup? If my house will burn, I'll get backup of this work from one of my neighbors.

2. In a situation where a leecher doesn't have fair use right, wouldn't both be liable of the creation of an authorized copy?

250 armchair lawyers :winkwink:

yes in the betamax case process after they lost the case an timeshifting was established as a fair use right. Universal side attempted to reign in timeshifting by asking for a court injunction that would a have put some kind of encoding header on the tape so that it woulc only be played back on the vcr that record the show.
that unjunction was rejected.

That why it was not illegal for you to give your friend your copy of "knight rider" because the power went out on his house and he failed to tape it. That why it can play in his vcr even though he didn't personally record it.


again look at the direct vs indirect above, that still applies. your backup could be directly creating an infringing copy. That could be a liablity depending on if your country has an aquaintance sharing exemption (sort of what you showed me) or not, and weather that exemption would cover all the neighbours in question or not.

it possible that would be justified it possible it wouldn't not be. but there is a second point, cullible liablity in copyright case is for WILFUL infringement, if your tricked into infringing the law doesn't make you liable in the same sense. You would still be guilty of violating copyright but the liablity (by comparision) would not exist.

so the most likely situation is that the first time, you were tricked into violating copyright (ie by someone who claims to have a right to your content, but doesn't) is that they would be guilty of wilful infringement, and you would be guilty of accidental infringement.


IF you could tell identify that person (your senerio) and you did it again after you knew that you were creating a direct infringement, then your actions would be elevated to wilful.

which is sort of the point of the safe harbor provision :winkwink::winkwink:



again it goes back to the direct vs indirect liability. the leacher may get a complete copy of the file, but no seeder is responsible for DIRECTLY creating of that unauthorized copy.
and that copy is created from the pieces of multiple different sources.
if he didn't directly create the unauthorized copy has no control over if the copy is or is not created, can he be guilty of WILFUL violation of copyright obviously no.

Would the leacher who lied, pretended to have a fair use right to take a right to view that he never actually had be guilty of wilful violation of the copyright obviously yes.

I see a bunch of file sharing sites getting shut down and people getting huge judgments place over them.. hell I've seen people get locked up over it


Why don't you help them gideon.. don't let your people suffer!

a fucking bump

name one of those case happened after the supreme court ruled in favor of this timeshifting.

When dr who gives me his tardis i will be sure to make sure those judges know what the ruling will be in the future.:winkwink::winkwink:

if you see a win from now on it will because the prosecution deliberately hide this case.
(this is the one that protects the trackers- by distingishing between a public transmission that initiates a private performance and true public performance)

How can a seeder argue he didn't know unathorized copies will be created, if there's no system in place to check wether other users have fair use rights or not?

re read what you just quoted, your blatently misrepresenting what i said.

just because you know that unauthorized copies could be made doesn't make you liable.

You know that little tommy may steal his dads credit card to get access to your porn site
your not liable when it happens just because you knew it COULD happen.

And there is a criminal liablity for distributing porn to minors.

even when you are talking about a tv show that was broadcast thru the air and therefore where 99.5%(percentage of people who have at least 1 tv) of the population has a right to timeshift it. there is still a possibility that someone will be making an infring copy.

however as the seeder i can't tell the difference between the infringer and the non infringer
just like sony with the vcr i can't tell which person is going to use my creation to make bootleg copies.
just like sony the seeder is not liable for the copyright infringement generated with the seeders creation (the swarm) when it happens.

Oh and btw in the betamax case sony warned about infringing use of their device in their manual, and even that level of knowledge of POTENTIAL infringement did not justify making them liable.

Wouldn't the same argument apply if you publicly host a copy at your server?