Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
That's a lie. You haven't answered the last and the most important question, which makes all of your torrent cloud fair use arguments an utmost bullshit:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...&postcount=258
Seeder IS and infringer because he has no business sharing his copy with others (outside of the usual circle of family and friends).
If you want to continue please either bump this old thread or start a new one - do not post in this thread anymore, it is for people who need to actually have some business done. |
actually i did address that issue you just jumped back on same question again
you repeatedly tried to argue that interpretation given is completely false because if you did the same thing as a server it would still be illegal.
I pointed out all of the key differences multiple times
Quote:
there is a difference between your example and the swarm example i gave you
your example here the people would get all the pieces DIRECTLY from you while the swarm you give the pieces away to multiple people and they share those pieces between them in transactions completely beyond your control (INDIRECTLY).
While the indirect transactional situation would be outside the scope of the actus rea, the direct would not.
It would require a stretching of this ruling and a couple of other to make that arguement. Is it possible yes, and i suspect that youtube will be attempting to do that , because the cache process of the flash streaming does do that.
will they be able to maybe. can that arguement be made explictly now, no.
|
yet you keep going back to your server example (directly under your control) to justify arguing liablity for the exact opposite (indirectly or outside your control).
IT a very important difference, vcr could be used for infringement but that infringement is not directly controlled by sony.
you did it multiple times btw.
Quote:
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
|
in response to your box of complete copyright work example (another directly responsible)
and to your attempt to claim that when i leecher who doesn't have a right does leech trying to stick the seeder with the liablity too (same point of your last post, and your current statement)
Quote:
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.
|
in response to your question
"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?"
Quote:
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.
|
the answer to the is the same as i have repeatedly given(direct vs indirect).
since in the very first answer i specifically said
Quote:
It would require a stretching of this ruling and a couple of other to make that arguement. Is it possible yes, and i suspect that youtube will be attempting to do that , because the cache process of the flash streaming does do that.
will they be able to maybe. can that arguement be made explictly now, no.
|
What you are doing when you keep going back to that invalid issue is the equivalent to trying to argue that a touchdown shouldn't count when the player caught the ball scored and then stepped out of bounds because if he stepped out of bound first it wouldn't have counted.