5 ms·

That won't fly because it is just as easy to lay claim that ignoring copyright is against the public because it devalues private property rights of which the cr

That won't fly because it is just as easy to lay claim that ignoring copyright is against the public because it devalues private property rights of which the creator did not assign to the IA.

lordlimecat 6y ago
The argument being put forward here is as if IA just broken into peoples houses and redistributed 3m masks, and tried to justify it because they're doing good.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  I agree! Many people are grossly exaggerating the harm so that they can scoff at the justification of "doing good".
  - afastow 6y ago
    Fine, but the good has been exaggerated too. Some people who heard about this were able to read a book or two for free during a time when everyone was stuck in their house. That's a good gesture that I'm sure was appreciated, but they didn't change anyone's life here. And it was a gesture that was not theirs to make. Did they ever consider just asking the publishers for permission? They might actually have gotten it. Companies were quite eager to do things to show they were trying to help back in March and April. But I've looked and found nothing saying they asked, so I'm guessing they didn't. Probably because they thought asking would look bad if they were told "no" and did it anyway.
  - lordlimecat 6y ago
    The justification of doing good would land the perpetrators from my post in jail for breaking, entering, and theft. We are a society of laws passed by representatives, not formed in one's mind on the spot.
shervinafshar 6y ago
Copyright Office mostly agrees with you in their response to an inquiry about IA National Emergency Library by a senator[1]. But there are things in that response to distinguish IA actions and motives from other bête noires of Copyright law (The Pirate Bay, etc.) That would give IA and their supporters something to work with; intents, outcomes, and the limited nature of IA NEL would (hopefully) harness publishers opportunism in the view of the law. [1]: https://www.copyright.gov/laws/hearings/Sen-Udall-Response-National-Emergency-Library.pdf?twcop=loclr https://www.copyright.gov/laws/hearings/Sen-Udall-Response-N...

That won't fly because it is just as easy to lay claim that ignoring copyright is against the public because it devalues private property rights of which the creator did not assign to the IA.

lordlimecat 6y ago

The argument being put forward here is as if IA just broken into peoples houses and redistributed 3m masks, and tried to justify it because they're doing good.

Dylan16807 6y ago
I agree! Many people are grossly exaggerating the harm so that they can scoff at the justification of "doing good".
- afastow 6y ago
  Fine, but the good has been exaggerated too. Some people who heard about this were able to read a book or two for free during a time when everyone was stuck in their house. That's a good gesture that I'm sure was appreciated, but they didn't change anyone's life here. And it was a gesture that was not theirs to make. Did they ever consider just asking the publishers for permission? They might actually have gotten it. Companies were quite eager to do things to show they were trying to help back in March and April. But I've looked and found nothing saying they asked, so I'm guessing they didn't. Probably because they thought asking would look bad if they were told "no" and did it anyway.
- lordlimecat 6y ago
  The justification of doing good would land the perpetrators from my post in jail for breaking, entering, and theft. We are a society of laws passed by representatives, not formed in one's mind on the spot.

shervinafshar 6y ago

Copyright Office mostly agrees with you in their response to an inquiry about IA National Emergency Library by a senator[1]. But there are things in that response to distinguish IA actions and motives from other bête noires of Copyright law (The Pirate Bay, etc.) That would give IA and their supporters something to work with; intents, outcomes, and the limited nature of IA NEL would (hopefully) harness publishers opportunism in the view of the law. [1]: https://www.copyright.gov/laws/hearings/Sen-Udall-Response-National-Emergency-Library.pdf?twcop=loclr https://www.copyright.gov/laws/hearings/Sen-Udall-Response-N...