Hacker News Reader

Comment by PurpleBoxDragon | Hacker News Reader

Not just copyright law. Look at the difference in laws being recording a video of a person and recording sound of the same person. I would love for law to be consistent, but as of yet there is no such requirement.

View on HN

For more headfuckery, try to work out if you can record a video of the soundwaves.

You can. You record a high definition video of items and can possibly determine the sound waves from the movement of the items. I've already seen demos of this tech where you can restore the majority of a transcript of a visually recorded conversation.

You technically can, but then it becomes illegal in most states.

Is there any case law on this? Given it is a recording of video, not audio, how does the law treat the ability to convert video into audio? This would make most video recordings where audio is illegal to also be illegal, if it is so directly applied.

Another fun legal question is what happens if I add fake audio to a video where the video is legal but the audio isn't, but I use legal audio recordings to fake the voice of the person I videotaped? Does it matter if the injected audio is close enough to what was originally said (say I remembered the words while I recorded the video)?

I assumed the post I responded to discussing actually converting it to audio rather than merely recording something that could theoretically be converted to audio. In that case, it's just a different type of photo-microphone, which is well established as audio recording.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com