Hacker News Reader

I'm sure that copying a work for your private consumption would be considered non-commercial in nature, but his assertion that it doesn't affect the potential market for the item wouldn't hold up.

It's clearly affecting the market for the original as you are removing yourself from the market for it. Creating a copy for your own consumption harms the copyright holder's ability to market a reproduction to you.

View on HN

>It's clearly affecting the market for the original as you are removing yourself from the market for it. Creating a copy for your own consumption harms the copyright holder's ability to market a reproduction to you. > Courts have found exactly that relationship in other contexts as well.

My rough understanding is that normally there has to be some minimal amount of damage and the effect has to be measurable. I am not familiar with the court cases but the term has been quote elsewhere in the comments, De minimis[1].

I also think the argument can be made that the person who makes a personal reproduction was never in the market for the original so there is not commercial impact. Or at least it is an easy argument to make.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright

Reply on news.ycombinator.com