4 ms·

Many people sadly have this mindset that if something is not explicitly and comprehensively spelt out then anything goes, therefore any complaints for bad imple

Many people sadly have this mindset that if something is not explicitly and comprehensively spelt out then anything goes, therefore any complaints for bad implementations is purely on the regulations for not being explicit and comprehensive enough. Now, obviously, there's SOME truth to this, but too often people think in black and white.

ncallaway 3y ago
I often think it usually goes the other way. If a regulation is too specifically defined, it often ends up having gaping holes and other issues. Most of our longest standing torts and crimes have subjectivity right at their core, and I'd argue that's not a coincidence but survivorship bias. The world just isn't black and white, and attempts to legislatively render it so inevitably cause problems (though, obviously too much subjectivity and something because uselessly vague; it's a tricky balancing act for sure).
- Defletter 3y ago
  Depends on the legislative culture. For example, from the Copywrongs talk from now Felix Reda: > The other legal tradition underlying the EU copyright system which is the continental European tradition of droit d’auteur (or Author's Rights). In this system, the authors of cultural works have certain inalienable rights that they cannot sell to a right holder. And, importantly, the exceptions to copyright, the interests of the public are written into the law. [...] The problem with the continental system is that it is quite inflexible because every time a new technological development comes about, you have to change the law to allow this type of use without a copyright infringement. So every new way of dealing with culture is fobidden by default. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL_Wxu6x1HU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL_Wxu6x1HU Whereas other legislative cultures prefer to set a general framework, then leave the details to the Courts and or to Government ministers.

ncallaway 3y ago

I often think it usually goes the other way. If a regulation is too specifically defined, it often ends up having gaping holes and other issues. Most of our longest standing torts and crimes have subjectivity right at their core, and I'd argue that's not a coincidence but survivorship bias. The world just isn't black and white, and attempts to legislatively render it so inevitably cause problems (though, obviously too much subjectivity and something because uselessly vague; it's a tricky balancing act for sure).

Defletter 3y ago
Depends on the legislative culture. For example, from the Copywrongs talk from now Felix Reda: > The other legal tradition underlying the EU copyright system which is the continental European tradition of droit d’auteur (or Author's Rights). In this system, the authors of cultural works have certain inalienable rights that they cannot sell to a right holder. And, importantly, the exceptions to copyright, the interests of the public are written into the law. [...] The problem with the continental system is that it is quite inflexible because every time a new technological development comes about, you have to change the law to allow this type of use without a copyright infringement. So every new way of dealing with culture is fobidden by default. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL_Wxu6x1HU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL_Wxu6x1HU Whereas other legislative cultures prefer to set a general framework, then leave the details to the Courts and or to Government ministers.