<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>terminous</author><text>&amp;gt; Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM&lt;p&gt;You can&amp;#x27;t just drop an extraordinary claim like that without a citation. When I search those terms, your comment is the only one I can find that remotely resembles anything like the case you&amp;#x27;re describing.</text><parent_chain><item><author>EMIRELADERO</author><text>Courts have ruled that &lt;i&gt;merely executing an exe file&lt;/i&gt; is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM. That&amp;#x27;s how deep it goes.&lt;p&gt;The reason no users are violating copyright when running software normally is because of a special exception for software in the Copyright Act.</text></item><item><author>arghdos</author><text>&amp;gt; The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without permission. When IA copied those files to a server, that amounted to another unauthorized reproduction&lt;p&gt;Am I wrong to interpret this as trying to outlaw ripping a CD and uploading to a personal NAS? There’s additional claims about distribution to the public that (may??) seem more reasonable, but that seems like some copyright maximalism trying to rewrite history?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit</title><url>https://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-hit-internet-archive-with-new-400m-copyright-lawsuit-230812/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>gumby</author><text>I think a lot of that has since gone away.&lt;p&gt;I remember the battles around &amp;#x27;2000 when the record industry tried to get paid for each instance when parts of the music files were buffered (because they were &amp;quot;copies&amp;quot;).  They weren&amp;#x27;t laughed out of court.  These days I think they would.</text><parent_chain><item><author>EMIRELADERO</author><text>Courts have ruled that &lt;i&gt;merely executing an exe file&lt;/i&gt; is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM. That&amp;#x27;s how deep it goes.&lt;p&gt;The reason no users are violating copyright when running software normally is because of a special exception for software in the Copyright Act.</text></item><item><author>arghdos</author><text>&amp;gt; The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without permission. When IA copied those files to a server, that amounted to another unauthorized reproduction&lt;p&gt;Am I wrong to interpret this as trying to outlaw ripping a CD and uploading to a personal NAS? There’s additional claims about distribution to the public that (may??) seem more reasonable, but that seems like some copyright maximalism trying to rewrite history?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Record labels hit Internet Archive with new copyright lawsuit</title><url>https://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-hit-internet-archive-with-new-400m-copyright-lawsuit-230812/</url></story>