Brazzers you scumbags is there anything ........

[kenny]

250 armchair lawyers

[gideongallery]

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.

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

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.

[kenny]

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!

[LoveSandra]

a fucking bump

[gideongallery]

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!

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.

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)

[Nautilus]

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.

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?

[gideongallery]

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.

[Nautilus]

just because you know that unauthorized copies could be made doesn't make you liable... however as the seeder i can't tell the difference between the infringer and the non infringer

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