RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Robert Bonomi <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com>]

> Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:19:58 -0000
> From: <michael.dillon () bt com>
[[..  munch  ..]]
> From a technical point of view, if your Bittorrent protocol seeder
> does not have a copy of the file on its harddrive, but pulls it
> in from the customer's computer, you would only be caching the
> file in RAM and there is some legal precedent going back into
> the pre-Internet era that exempts such copies from legislation.

"Not Exactly"..  there is a court case (MAI Systems Corp. vs Peak Computer Inc
991 F.2d 511) holding that copying from storage media into computer ram *IS* 
actionable copyright infringement.  A specific exemption was written into
the copyright statutes for computer _programs_ (but *NOT* 'data') that the
owner of the computer hardware has a legal right to use. 

If you own the hardware, a third party can, WITHOUT infringing on copyright
cause the copying of "your" *programs* from storage (disk, tape, whatever) 
into RAM without infringing on the copyright owner's rights.

OTOH, it the colletion of bits on the storage media is just 'data', not
an executable program, the 9th Circuit interpretation of Title 17 stands,
and such loading into RAM _is_ actionable copyright infringement.  

It is _possible_ -- but, to the best of my knowledge *UNTESTED* in 
court -- that 47 USC 230 (c) (1) immunity might apply to a caching 'upload
server', since the content therein _is_ provided by "another information
content provider' (the customer who uploaded it).


I wouldn't want to bet on which prevails.  
Management pays the lawyers for that, 
*NOT* the operations people.          <wry grin>