3 ms·
> The claim in that case is that it should be allowed because it's temporary and can only operate during an emergent crisis, thereby limiting the impact on the
by joshspankit 2y ago
> The claim in that case is that it should be allowed because it's temporary and can only operate during an emergent crisis, thereby limiting the impact on the market for the works.
While personally I think that this is a powerful goal, how would that work in practice? Who determines what an emergency is? Once an emergency is declared, does everyone get the legal ability to seed torrents of copyright works? Or stream them directly to the public? If the copyright holders get upset about that then they will be motivated to downplay emergencies which puts them in opposition to the common good. What safeguards would need to be in place?
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoWho determines what is an emergency is the judge. If you guess wrong you lose, but some cases are clearer than others. If a global pandemic that shuts down the economy isn't an emergency then what is? > If the copyright holders get upset about that then they will be motivated to downplay emergencies which puts them in opposition to the common good. The entire premise is that it's temporary and therefore not likely to negatively impact them. But it's also obvious that media companies have a preexisting perverse incentive to over-hype any form of danger, so a countervailing force in the other direction would be a welcome balancing mechanism.