dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
33
share rss forum feed

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

1 recommendation

reply to globus9991

Re: CIPPIC is watching DSLReports

One of the thing that bothers me (and that has been somewhat posted before) is that almost all movies shared on the net are technically Data Container Formats (see »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_container for a crude explanation).

Typically (but not always - rare occurrence) a Data Container Format has the following components (oversimplified, of course):

1 - Header
2 - Data Streams (interleaved)
3 - Index

Typically (but not always - a rare occurrence) the data in the Data Streams cannot be understood without the Header and the Index.

Said Header and Index are physically located at the beginning and end of said Data Container, this is, at the beginning and end of a movie file.

The bittorrent process segments files into hundredths to thousands of "chunks". This means, that for a given movie, most of these chunks will be simply Data Streams.

Now, in a movie, a Data Stream is meaningless without the Header and the Index which indicates how to "play" the movie (i.e. how to execute the interleaved data streams by indicating how to de-compress them and their location in the Data Stream).

This is, if I share a chunk containing a piece of a Data Stream, that data or information *cannot* be construed as a part of a copyrighted work. Why? Simple: it is indistinguishable from garbage.

How do we recognize a "part" or "portion" of a copyrighted work? By looking at its similarities with the work. By getting a portion of the information available in the work. Does this happen with Data Stream chunks? NO.

Given "chunks" can one view a portion of the movie? NO.
Given "chunks" can one listen to a portion of the sound track? NO
Given "chunks" can one extract snapshots or pictures of the movie? NO

In other words, I could potentially download all of the movie but without the Header and the Index and STILL have garbage in my HDD.

So, if a chunk is totally and utterly unrecognizable from any part of the copyrighted work without the Header and the Index, what exactly are people "sharing"??? Basically garbage, NOT the copyrighted work.

So, a copyright holder would have to prove that you are uploading *the entire movie*, particularly the Header and the Index for it to be in a state of copyright infringement. Since without the Header and the Index, the file cannot be de-compressed dynamically and converted into a watchable movie.

This is not what Voltage claimed in their papers. Granted, they are *very* technically confusing indeed, but the most likely interpretation is that they got a few chunks from some people, checked their hashes, assembled 1 movie and viewed the movie against an original.

I cannot read their papers as they downloading 2300 full movies from all involved IPs and then comparing each of the 2300 movies against an original sample.

So, technically, they are claiming copyright infringement based on people uploading garbage!

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
Claiming infringement based on garbage, but not only that GuardaLey Observer doesn't actually download anything. It just collects IPs from the swarm and records that it received chunks even if no chunks were sent. See the independent review of the software (»www.scribd.com/doc/62983561/Ipoque-Rev)

Edit: Re: Fair use... you can still upload 100% and have it be used for fair use. Lets say John Doe teacher wants to use a clip from a film, they download it from me, cut out the clip they need, use it and delete the rest.

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
said by JMJimmy:

Claiming infringement based on garbage, but not only that GuardaLey Observer doesn't actually download anything. It just collects IPs from the swarm and records that it received chunks even if no chunks were sent. See the independent review of the software (»www.scribd.com/doc/62983561/Ipoque-Rev)

Yes, but don't forget that Canipre's affidavit specifically states that they did download indeed the movies. The question is, how much and which chunks from which IP.

said by JMJimmy:

Edit: Re: Fair use... you can still upload 100% and have it be used for fair use. Lets say John Doe teacher wants to use a clip from a film, they download it from me, cut out the clip they need, use it and delete the rest.

Not sure about that, does not sound right, but I could be mistaken.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
said by globus9991:

said by JMJimmy:

Edit: Re: Fair use... you can still upload 100% and have it be used for fair use. Lets say John Doe teacher wants to use a clip from a film, they download it from me, cut out the clip they need, use it and delete the rest.

Not sure about that, does not sound right, but I could be mistaken.

I'm not 100% on this one either, fair use is always tricky. However, if this were not the case, how else would someone like an educator get the clip without a) purchasing the film b) breaking the digital lock rules on a rental/library copy.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
Pretty sure fair use applies to however they use it (ie: distribution to a class), and wouldn't cover any acts on the part of the source they got it from.

So in the case of your example, the teacher would be fine but your action would still be copyright infringement. I think.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
Normally I would agree, but Muzak supra applies. Using a piece of equipment (P2P Client) which is capable of infringement doesn't mean I expressly authorize the infringement. If I were to email Joe teacher a link to my file and say "here download it" that's express authorization of infringement. Being part of a swarm is a passive behaviour.


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
reply to globus9991
said by globus9991:

So, technically, they are claiming copyright infringement based on people uploading garbage!

Well, yes, we've all read through the list of movies they're suing over.


Crazycanuckz

@reliablehosting.com
You mean crappy low budget films. They shouldn't get anymore than $10 per movie if that.