Clearly no, and we have two opinions now from federal courts explaining why. Maybe they can appeal it to the Supreme Court and get a 3rd, taking this question off the table categorically for the next 30 years.
Your comment was in response to an argument about what the law is. This entire thread is about a court case, which deal with what the law is. You're in no position to accuse others of not responding on-topic.
His comment, despite being placed as a reply to mine, did not address what I was arguing.
I'm particular the "clearly no" does not work. The "clear" thing was not what I was contesting.
And I want to state here that I don't want to relitigate anything in the original discussion. I'm only replying because you seem to misunderstand what this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41607486 meant in the first place and I'm willing to explain in other wording what it meant.
The law we're talking about does not in fact date back to player pianos or s's that look like f's; it's been continuously refined all the way into the 21st century. So I think it matters a great deal what it actually says now.
> The law we're talking about does not in fact date back to player pianos or s's that look like f's; it's been continuously refined all the way into the 21st century.
It has been partially updated but not enough.
> So I think it matters a great deal what it actually says now.
I never implied otherwise.
A suggestion for change is by definition based on the current version.
Please don't do this. I'm not talking about what the law is, I'm talking about what it can be. You are not responding to my argument.