Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dylan16807 | Hacker News Reader

The law was written a long time ago and it needs some clarifications and updates.

Lots of temporary copies are already considered fair use. Every time you play a disc you make temporary copies, and nobody complains.

And if playing a CD can just use copyright and no "government DRM", then so can lending an ebook.

View on HN

From the Copyright Act:

> "Phonorecords" are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "phonorecords" includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed.

So the version of the work traveling through the air is not in itself a phonorecord protected by copyright law: fair use is not even relevant for it. (However, copyright law does protect the phonorecord in the CD from being performed publicly.)

I'm not talking about the sounds, I'm talking about the perfect digital copies in the RAM chips of the player.

And RAM is considered "fixed" by every interpretation I've ever seen.

Do CD players tend to keep any more than a few seconds' worth in memory? If not, you could easily argue that any given segment is too short to contain copyrightable expression. But fair use is a very particular concept about the ultimate purpose of producing a copy, which I don't think would apply to any scenario along these lines.

Some CD players buffer a full minute or longer, and also samples have been considered copyright infringement even when they're a second long.

Clearly, it would be infringement if you buffered a minute of audio from CD into a player, then sold that player to someone else (without unpowering it) while keeping the CD for yourself. So I guess you might be right, and it could be fair use that allows it in the typical case (assuming it is allowed).

Clearly no, and we have two opinions now from federal courts explaining why. Maybe they can appeal it to the Supreme Court and get a 3rd, taking this question off the table categorically for the next 30 years.

> Clearly no

Please don't do this. I'm not talking about what the law is, I'm talking about what it can be. You are not responding to my argument.

The law we're talking about does not in fact date back to player pianos or s's that look like f's; it's been continuously refined all the way into the 21st century. So I think it matters a great deal what it actually says now.

> The law we're talking about does not in fact date back to player pianos or s's that look like f's; it's been continuously refined all the way into the 21st century.

It has been partially updated but not enough.

> So I think it matters a great deal what it actually says now.

I never implied otherwise.

A suggestion for change is by definition based on the current version.

Your comment was in response to an argument about what the law is. This entire thread is about a court case, which deal with what the law is. You're in no position to accuse others of not responding on-topic.

I didn't accuse tptacek of being off-topic, I accused him of a non sequitur.

Do you not know what "non sequitur" translates to or something?

His comment, despite being placed as a reply to mine, did not address what I was arguing.

I'm particular the "clearly no" does not work. The "clear" thing was not what I was contesting.

And I want to state here that I don't want to relitigate anything in the original discussion. I'm only replying because you seem to misunderstand what this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41607486 meant in the first place and I'm willing to explain in other wording what it meant.

This is a stunning lack of self-awareness.

Do you want to explain that in any way, or do you just want to be rude while you keep saying incorrect things about my comments? In particular, I never accused anyone of being off-topic.

Early in this conversation I made a comment that shifted the topic slightly, but was also a reply to the argument in the parent comment. tptacek's reply to me was not a reply to the argument in my comment. It was arguing past me. Or I could say it was strawmanning me, but that makes it sound too intentional.

I think that situation is pretty simple. It also seems pretty simple that you misunderstood my comment #41607486.

What's your actual criticism, other than the incorrect idea that I accused tptacek of being off-topic, and other than vague petty snipes?

This game of repeating my argument back to me but worse has gotten old.

> repeating my argument back to me

So I'm not missing anything. You had exactly one criticism, and I explained over and over that it's not what I meant. You can't change what I meant no matter what you say; that criticism is flat-out invalid. And you have no replacement criticisms, despite implying you had some.

Cool, that means I'm clear of all accusations!

"I'm clear of all accusations" lmao dude we're not in court

Your argument is naive and a little absurd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com