6 ms·

>I'm allowed to record "tv" to [...] only watch it once This is gold. What if you mirror it on two TV screens, but one has a slight latency, because HDMI->SCAR

>I'm allowed to record "tv" to [...] only watch it once This is gold. What if you mirror it on two TV screens, but one has a slight latency, because HDMI->SCART something something connector?

KMnO4 5y ago
The law isn’t written by machines. Obviously that would be okay.
zamadatix 5y ago
From the same people that tell me I have to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. The complete fools, don't they know my car will still have temperature!
- tadfisher 5y ago
  The Heisenberg uncertainty principle may make enforcement a little tough.
- noxer 5y ago
  What about the earth spin? Whether you slow down or not if you break to a "complete" stop isn't even clear... it depend on the direction you drive compared to the earth rotation you may actually accelerate.
jodrellblank 5y ago
Yossarian shot up in bed; "I see everything twice!" he cried. The TV licensing auditors hurried into the room. "How many TV shows are playing?" one asked, holding up one screen. "Two" said Yossarian. "Now how many?", pointing at two mirrored screens with a delay between them. "Two" said Yossarian. "And now?" switching both screens off. "Two" said Yossarian. The TV licensing auditors conferred amongst themselves. "If he sees everything twice, he needs two licenses" one argued. "Hold on" said another, "he reported seeing six shows, he needs six licenses". "We showed him three, he saw six, he needs nine licenses" said another. The second one's eyes narrowed. "The law doesn't allow him to see more than one, he needs a fine". "If he's creating new feeds without permissions, that's distribution and copyright infringement, he could be facing a custodial sentence for this". They turned to Yossarian who decided it had gone far enough. "I see everything once!" he cried. "Destruction of evidence now, is it?". It's Content-22: if you don't want to watch it, there's no money to be made from you so you can - better that you watch and talk about it than not. But if you do want to watch it, then you can't, not without paying. The content is made for people who want it, but those are the very people who have to be kept from it. The people who want to come in, can't, and the people who want to share it, mustn't. Yossarian thought about Content-22. He picked up a book. "Put me through to cancellations, I have been meaning to do more reading lately". The TV licensing auditors hesitated and glanced at each other. "One license per person, covers all screens, after all you can only watch one at a time" said one. "We can give you a discount if you extend your license for another year?" said another. "And send you an upgraded set-top box for being a loyal customer".
- helloworld11 5y ago
  Loved this.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  Brilliant, great username too.
chrisseaton 5y ago
The legal community isn't interested in petty 'gotchas' like this. A judge would just apply a test of what a reasonable person (so not a HN user) would think and say that obviously this is fine why are you wasting their time with such a question.
- _nalply 5y ago
  aka the Cooperative Principle or Grice's Maxims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle
- foxfluff 5y ago
  How do you feel about the 'gotcha' that you're technically making a temporary copy of a program in RAM in order to run it? My understanding is that this is the critical 'gotcha' that necessitates a license for using software in EU. Copyright was supposed to govern copying, not use. Of course the scope of copyright has been only expanded since then.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    Not sure I follow how RAM would extend any application of copyright. EU law already protects copyright of object code which means even the initial copy (RAM or non-RAM) storage can already require a license.
    - foxfluff 5y ago
      Could but by and large didn't, at least not for consumer software. You walk into a store, you buy a disc, it's yours. Legally obtained copy. No terms. After that you'd be free to use it without having any terms be imposed on you by the copyright holder, because using isn't copying, and if you're not doing something that is the copyright holder's exclusive right, you don't need their permission to do it. If we wanted to follow this line of thinking, maybe you should also need a license to listen to music because today's digital media players tend to make temporary copies of the audio in RAM and buffers.. I think this technicality makes a big difference. Of course I'm sure they could figure out other ways to give copyright holders the power to impose their terms on users, but the way it's currently done in EU feels like a technical 'gotcha' to me. "Article 4 of Directive 91/250 lays down the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, rights of a preventative nature, in its computer program. The first of those rights is the right of reproduction, which is defined in particularly broad terms because it covers not only any form of reproduction, whether permanent or temporary, but also acts of reproduction necessary to use a program. Unlike other categories of works, in any case those which are distributed on their own medium, a computer program always requires a reproduction, if only a temporary one, in the computer’s memory in order for that program to be used. The rightholder’s exclusive rights therefore constitute, as far as computer programs are concerned, greater intrusion into the private sphere of the user than in the case of other categories of protected subject matter, because those rights require de facto the authorisation of the rightholder even simply to use the program. .. Thus, the copyright holder’s exclusive rights in a computer program cover not only traditional acts of exploitation of the work under copyright, but also the enjoyment of that work in the user’s private sphere." https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf;jsessionid=65A4A57EAA6D78A82DD59E1FC9E08B02?docid=238707&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&occ=first%C3%A2%C2%88%C2%82%3D1&mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&cid=285070 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf;js...
VelkaMorava 5y ago
Remember IT Crowd? "You wouldn't steal a car..." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg)

>I'm allowed to record "tv" to [...] only watch it once This is gold. What if you mirror it on two TV screens, but one has a slight latency, because HDMI->SCART something something connector?

KMnO4 5y ago

The law isn’t written by machines. Obviously that would be okay.

zamadatix 5y ago

From the same people that tell me I have to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. The complete fools, don't they know my car will still have temperature!

tadfisher 5y ago
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle may make enforcement a little tough.
noxer 5y ago
What about the earth spin? Whether you slow down or not if you break to a "complete" stop isn't even clear... it depend on the direction you drive compared to the earth rotation you may actually accelerate.

jodrellblank 5y ago

Yossarian shot up in bed; "I see everything twice!" he cried. The TV licensing auditors hurried into the room. "How many TV shows are playing?" one asked, holding up one screen. "Two" said Yossarian. "Now how many?", pointing at two mirrored screens with a delay between them. "Two" said Yossarian. "And now?" switching both screens off. "Two" said Yossarian. The TV licensing auditors conferred amongst themselves. "If he sees everything twice, he needs two licenses" one argued. "Hold on" said another, "he reported seeing six shows, he needs six licenses". "We showed him three, he saw six, he needs nine licenses" said another. The second one's eyes narrowed. "The law doesn't allow him to see more than one, he needs a fine". "If he's creating new feeds without permissions, that's distribution and copyright infringement, he could be facing a custodial sentence for this". They turned to Yossarian who decided it had gone far enough. "I see everything once!" he cried. "Destruction of evidence now, is it?". It's Content-22: if you don't want to watch it, there's no money to be made from you so you can - better that you watch and talk about it than not. But if you do want to watch it, then you can't, not without paying. The content is made for people who want it, but those are the very people who have to be kept from it. The people who want to come in, can't, and the people who want to share it, mustn't. Yossarian thought about Content-22. He picked up a book. "Put me through to cancellations, I have been meaning to do more reading lately". The TV licensing auditors hesitated and glanced at each other. "One license per person, covers all screens, after all you can only watch one at a time" said one. "We can give you a discount if you extend your license for another year?" said another. "And send you an upgraded set-top box for being a loyal customer".

helloworld11 5y ago
Loved this.
pbhjpbhj 5y ago
Brilliant, great username too.

chrisseaton 5y ago

The legal community isn't interested in petty 'gotchas' like this. A judge would just apply a test of what a reasonable person (so not a HN user) would think and say that obviously this is fine why are you wasting their time with such a question.

_nalply 5y ago
aka the Cooperative Principle or Grice's Maxims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle
foxfluff 5y ago
How do you feel about the 'gotcha' that you're technically making a temporary copy of a program in RAM in order to run it? My understanding is that this is the critical 'gotcha' that necessitates a license for using software in EU. Copyright was supposed to govern copying, not use. Of course the scope of copyright has been only expanded since then.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  Not sure I follow how RAM would extend any application of copyright. EU law already protects copyright of object code which means even the initial copy (RAM or non-RAM) storage can already require a license.
  - foxfluff 5y ago
    Could but by and large didn't, at least not for consumer software. You walk into a store, you buy a disc, it's yours. Legally obtained copy. No terms. After that you'd be free to use it without having any terms be imposed on you by the copyright holder, because using isn't copying, and if you're not doing something that is the copyright holder's exclusive right, you don't need their permission to do it. If we wanted to follow this line of thinking, maybe you should also need a license to listen to music because today's digital media players tend to make temporary copies of the audio in RAM and buffers.. I think this technicality makes a big difference. Of course I'm sure they could figure out other ways to give copyright holders the power to impose their terms on users, but the way it's currently done in EU feels like a technical 'gotcha' to me. "Article 4 of Directive 91/250 lays down the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, rights of a preventative nature, in its computer program. The first of those rights is the right of reproduction, which is defined in particularly broad terms because it covers not only any form of reproduction, whether permanent or temporary, but also acts of reproduction necessary to use a program. Unlike other categories of works, in any case those which are distributed on their own medium, a computer program always requires a reproduction, if only a temporary one, in the computer’s memory in order for that program to be used. The rightholder’s exclusive rights therefore constitute, as far as computer programs are concerned, greater intrusion into the private sphere of the user than in the case of other categories of protected subject matter, because those rights require de facto the authorisation of the rightholder even simply to use the program. .. Thus, the copyright holder’s exclusive rights in a computer program cover not only traditional acts of exploitation of the work under copyright, but also the enjoyment of that work in the user’s private sphere." https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf;jsessionid=65A4A57EAA6D78A82DD59E1FC9E08B02?docid=238707&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&occ=first%C3%A2%C2%88%C2%82%3D1&mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&cid=285070 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf;js...

VelkaMorava 5y ago

Remember IT Crowd? "You wouldn't steal a car..." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg)