I know if seems like we are arguing semantics and I guess that is what this is. The Computer-realm article says, quote: According to the legal assistance website,
FindLaw, “Copyright Office contends there is no violation when ‘a reproduction manifests itself so fleetingly that it cannot be copied, perceived or communicated.’”
And the Business INsider article says:
But is streaming unlicensed content online illegal?
Jim Gibson, director of the Intellectual Property Institute at the University of Richmond law school, told Business Insider that streaming online content breaks the law in two cases.
When the user downloads even part of a file — called "pseudo-streaming" — it counts as a copy of copyrighted material, which is illegal. And when the user streams content as a "public performance" — namely, when it's shown to a substantial number of people outside the normal family circle and its close acquaintances — it also constitutes a copyright violation. Outside of these cases, accessing unlicensed streamed content is generally legal.
I don't think they consider the transitory fleeting nature of streamed content being buffered as downloading.