Embedding Infringing Videos Is Not Copyright Infringement

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that linking to, embedding or simply watching videos does not constitute copyright infringement and is a separate issue from uploading, hosting or streaming content. It’s a sure bet this ruling will be cited in other cases on down the line and may be the first step into defining infringement on a broader base.

He's saying (Judge Posner) that those who are watching a video that someone else uploaded are not infringing on the reproduction right under copyright. Only the uploader has potentially violated that right. So there can't be a contributory infringement claim over that right.
Click to expand...
 
MajorDomo said:
He's saying (Judge Posner) that those who are watching a video that someone else uploaded are not infringing on the reproduction right under copyright. Only the uploader has potentially violated that right. So there can't be a contributory infringement claim over that right. .
Click to expand...

Which is what I have been saying.:p
 
sweet, so set your p2p programs to not upload and all you're technically doing is watching what someone else uploaded??
 
sfsuphysics said:
sweet, so set your p2p programs to not upload and all you're technically doing is watching what someone else uploaded??
Click to expand...

Hasn't it always been this way, though? I was under the impression that if you don't upload the data packets pertaining to the file in question you'd never be "pirating." Furthermore, the way they log the IPs is by the person connecting to the seeder who's logging them -- usually a bot.

For example, you can make copies of a billion different movies but it only becomes illegal if you distribute them.
 
sfsuphysics said:
sweet, so set your p2p programs to not upload and all you're technically doing is watching what someone else uploaded??
Click to expand...

No, the judge stopped short of declaring that. Reading the brief, it seems that the judge has said that if you watch it, you're definitely not infringing because you're not making a copy. He doesn't define exactly what is and isn't "making a copy", which can be a bit disconcerting if you think about it...a flash player receiving content would generally have a cache. Technically speaking that's a copy of the content! :D
 
sfsuphysics said:
sweet, so set your p2p programs to not upload and all you're technically doing is watching what someone else uploaded??
Click to expand...

i was thinking same thing. it's not like they released 1080p rip/dvd rip, as downloading rips is like downloading data that other's have shared.
 
I am not one for saving Terabytes of old TV & Movies that I have already seen once, so what if I download a TV series into a storage buffer, then watch it, then make sure that it is immediately cleared from the storage buffer?
 
you're still downloading something that is illegal, that will be the part they need to define clearly

You knowingly download illegal content....

could be what the MPAA and RIAA come back with, sure someone uploaded it but you downloaded it to...
 
There is TECHNOLOGICALLY no difference between watching and "downloading", the electrons wiggled the data and no one can tell or know that you used those wiggling electrons to diddle your display/speakers OR to diddle magnetic domains on your hard drive.

Only sending in SWAT to look for recorded traces on your computer could tell the difference.

So does the impossible to enforce aspect of this distinction judge Posner just made effectively neutralize all the "downloading" lawsuits and judgments?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top