Quote:
Originally Posted by Due
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
|
have you ever used a torrent before
the original seeder doesn't have to stay connected for the swarm to exist
once he/she has distributed 100% of the pieces the swarm is active even if the original seeder drops out
the data from the prespective of the swarm is redundant copy of those non working pieces.
Quote:
|
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)
|
that the stupidest statemet you have made so far
1. if that what they were doing then they would never have lost in the first place because there wouldn't have even been a public transmission to confuse with a public broadcast
2. the appeals court would have ruled that making a private copy from a public transmission is allowed because they would not be making a public transmission only a private one.
3. end points being private doesn't change the transmission between those two end points (in fact the private nature of the end points is exactly what making a private copy from a PUBLIC transmission is talking about)
4. you can't make a private transmission over a public protocol, using a public medium even a VPN is a virtual private network, a simulation of a private network, not a real private network.
Quote:
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. 
|
well if you completely make up bullshit to make your point of course your never going to see anything that changes your mind.
if your going to go so far as completely ignore the fact control was never defined anywere in the fair use statute to claim that control is necessary to have fair use
of course your never going to see the legality of the technology
but the simple fact is if the techology was illegal on it spec (which is what your always sharing arguement is) then the techology as a whole would be shut down
see the morpheous case.
it hasn't happened and that proves your wrong.