this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
420 points (94.7% liked)

Technology

34449 readers
230 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But we do actually have precedent where there was creation of copies out of thin air. VHS recordings of broadcast, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios. It was actually settled on time-shifted of free-aired material being fair use. Nobody argued that the VCR owners having no copy before recording did not make a copy.

You're conflating the concept of "recording" with the concept of "copying". They weren't making a copy. They were making a recording. As your citation demonstrates, these two concepts are not the same thing.

Importantly, there is no difference in the legality of recording when we switch from an authorized broadcaster to a pirate transmitter. It is still perfectly lawful to create a recording of what was sent to you.

Even if you call up the pirate station and ask them to transmit the specific work that you want to receive, the transmitter is still exclusively responsible. Even if you call them up and ask them to retransmit those parts you didn't receive clearly, the infringement is theirs, not yours. You are free to receive and record whatever someone wants to send you.

Downloading is recording, not copying. You are receiving and saving the work that is being transmitted to you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’re conflating the concept of “recording” with the concept of “copying”. They weren’t making a copy. They were making a recording. As your citation demonstrates, these two concepts are not the same thing.

Fuck off mate, you are full of shit. The concept of recording is so different to copying according to my citation that the recording are made via 'copying devices'. It's also immaterial. RECORDINGS could infringe and thus the court therefore examines if the fair use exception applies.

I will no more argue with you, since you are dishonest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

They are technologically similar concepts, but there are distinct legal differences. When the act is performed by a single legal entity, it is "copying". Where the act is performed by two separate legal entities, the receiving entity is "recording". The transmitting entity is "distributing".

RECORDINGS could infringe

There can certainly be infringement involved in the complete act, but it is committed by the entity distributing the work without permission, not the entity receiving the work.

Recording could be infringing in certain special circumstances, where the rightsholder controls both the transmission of the work as well as the presence of the receiver. It could be infringement to record inside a theater, for example.

But they cannot prohibit me from putting up an antenna and recording what I hear; they cannot prohibit me from attaching a computer to a network and recording what is sent to me over that network.