Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
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. |
under the current legal system an explict declaration that they will not here the case is a declaration that the ruling was exactly on point
there isn't even need for a decenting oppinion or limiting condition (see below)
Quote:
|
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.
|
and guess what the original case had these issue as well and it still lost at the lower court level
the arguement that won and was reversed was the concept of public transmission being equal to public broadcast
this is what got reversed by the AC
it the validation that if you make a private copy from a public transmission it is entitled to fair use protection depending on the use of that private copy.
remember it not fair system it fair use.
Quote:
|
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.
|
please the cablevision os does that for the customer
and i can just as easily get the same level of hands off interaction by using the rss feed function of utorrent
subscribing to my favorite shows from tv related torrent tracker
like tvtorrents.com
that a straw man arguement at best and a completely bogus misrepresentation of the fact
those issue were considered irrelevent by the lower court ruling
the issue that defined weather it was infringement or not was the public transmission being considered equal to public broadcast
and that ruling was reversed by the appeals court.
Quote:
|
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.
|
bullshit
you don't play anything from the swarm
if i pause my playing it doesn't stop for anyone else
if i fast forward it doesn't fast forward for anyone else
if it stops it doesn't stop for anyone else
you play from your local private copy ONLY
the transmission of the data to the client side is thru a public medium for both examples
cablevision thru the internet
me thru the swarm.
again the key part of the ruling was that making a private copy from a public transmission is still allowed to have fair use protection.
your ignoring the rights granted by the court case (in this case the right to make a private copy from a public transmission) just like you ignored the rights granted by the original (in that case the right to make a commercial free personal copy) to make up rules that don't really exist.
your doing the same thing you did before with your official timeshifting vs swarm arguement in the other thread.