• azuth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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.