So, I don't have the right to contract to a company to do at their location what I would contract them to do at my house? Or is it just illegal when my neighbo

So, I don't have the right to contract to a company to do at their location what I would contract them to do at my house? Or is it just illegal when my neighbor makes the same contract? For example, no one is arguing that a webservices company wouldn't have the ability to create multiple VM instances, each of which stored copies of my digital media and streamed a single copy of them back to me upon request. (Assuming I had obtained the copyrights to use these products myself.) Nor that it would be illegal of the company to do this multiple times, for multiple clients, even if the VMs were hosted on the same physical machine. It's clearly that any of the copyright violations involved in this scheme would be the result of the end-user, and not of the hosting provider. I think the judge is simply wrong here - and that there is a meaningful distinction in the technology used to implement it, precisely because it's a per-customer service, rather than a bulk aggregation and redistribution.