Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
1. Is there a law or a court decision that confirms that sharing of copies made for timeshifting between different users is legal?
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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
Quote:
|
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?
|
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.