Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
This isn't a cache, so it makes no difference. And even if you give out 1 byte of data, it's still giving it away.
|
why because you say so
cacheing put a byte of data on another machine too
if that your definition of infringement the fair use of cacheing would disappear completely
too even if you argued that swarm is not cache based transaction.
Quote:
|
Time shifting does not authorize distribution of the copyrighted material... being that we're talking about torrents and not a shared copy which is fair use.
|
sure it does
the mpaa failed to get an injunction to prevent tapes from playing in other vcr (vcr that didn't record the show)
if timeshifting didn't authorize distribution they would have most certainly won that one
the didn't so timeshifting does authorize distribution
Quote:
|
But make 10,000 copies and try to give those out on ebay - find out how fast fair use dries up.
|
huge difference
your giving away 10k complete working copies, when you share a torrent 10k copies may ultimately produced
but your not giving anyone even one complete working copy to anyone.
As i have said already, complete working copy is one of the key differences between grokster case and this one.
Quote:
Yes it does... and yes courts have already ruled. Maybe not on the actual software but they've got them another way.
First DRM content (theater releases) from the recording, transfer, upload/download, anyone in between is guilty of a crime.
And they WILL have to add active/progressive filtering to ensure copyrighted materials can not be found or they will be put out of business... just like alllll the other piracy cases coming down the pipe.
|
actually you need to reread grokster again
the supreme court choose not to decide if access shifting was a fair use because each transaction included 1 infringing action (sharing a complete working copy of the content) and one potentially non infringing (downloader) assuming access shifting was valid.
they never ruled against the fair use, they just said the decision would be moot because even if they ruled in favor of the defendent the transaction would still have an infringing component and therefore still be infringing anyway.
we are talking about a technolgy that allows the download without requiring anyone give away a complete working copy to anyone.
which means this time, access shifting as a fair use has a legitimate RIGHT to be CONSIDERED.
The summary judgement denies that right to be considered at all.