— 9 — ensures that the parcels of data sent to B are different from those already sent to A. The tracker server, coordinating this data flow, causes A to re-transmit the data it has already received to B, thus relieving the seeder of that burden. Similarly, since B is receiving data which A has not yet received, the tracker server directs B to re-transmit that data to A. Thus, the “peer” computers A and B share data they have received from the seeder. As C, D and E join in, the tracker server coordinates the data flows with a view to each member of the downloading network (termed a “swarm” in BitTorrent usage) receiving an entire copy of the film directly or indirectly from the initial seeder. 29. This system is generally understood by participants and, as was pointed out in evidence, “it is considered good BT manners for a downloader to stay connected for some time after finishing his download, in order to make his packets available to other downloaders and to assist in completing their downloads.” 30. In the present case, in relation to “Daredevil”, the tracker server’s peer list indicated that 40 peer computers were downloading the film when the Customs Officer gained access to the tracker server. In the case of each of the other two films, the presence online of two other peers was indicated. As previously noted, the officer succeeded in downloading entire copies of each of the three films. 31. From the foregoing facts, it is clear that via an internet BitTorrent network in which the appellant’s computer acted as the initial seeder, a number of downloaders obtained infringing copies of the films which were duplicates of the infringing copies residing on the appellant’s computer. The question is whether this was the result of a process amounting in law to distribution by the appellant of infringing copies of the films.