Hacker News Reader

> "The main issue was whether or not something had to be directly perceptible (meaning intelligible to an ordinary human being) for it to be a "copy."

Why doesn't the same argument apply to a CD? or an MP3?

View on HN

> “This case was subsequently eclipsed by Congress's intervention in the form of an amendment to the Copyright Act of 1909, introducing a compulsory license for the manufacture and distribution of such "mechanical" embodiments of musical works.”

A CD and MP3s consist of recorded performances. A player piano roll contains the instructions for a performance, basically a transcription of sheet music, or a recording of someone performing a work. (Didn't read court findings for scope.)

Works (sheet music and lyrics) and recordings (committing it to media or storage) and performances can be distinctly copyrighted and separately licensed. But a CD track represents all 3 of those put together through “sweat of the brow”, usually by multiple parties.

Not strictly true. Player piano rolls were not made by mechanical transciption; a human actually played the music into a recording device (at least towards the end of the era). Because of this, we have a "recording" of Scott Joplin playing one of his rags. Dynamics are not preserved, but actual timing is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com