3 ms·
I believe you can argue that the damage done by DMCA surpass its protective mission. The EFF has a thorough list of abuses. But no, if you don't have access to
by raxxorraxor 2y ago
I believe you can argue that the damage done by DMCA surpass its protective mission. The EFF has a thorough list of abuses.
But no, if you don't have access to a legal department, DMCA complaints often do not go to court either and these are the undocumented cases. There are some instances where large companies like Google defend a user in their stead. Because they have a legal department.
Damage > protection, so DMCA is just a continuation of a broken copyright law. I see this law hitting in a similar direction, but that remains to be seen.
- llamaimperative 2y agoSure, none of this is relevant to the question of how a society enforces laws that require some type of interpretation: they go to court.
- raxxorraxor 2y agoI disagree that this was the extent of the question here. It is relevant to determine the quality of the law. It is also relevant to determine the prevalence of legal certainty. If the latter is low, you involve the courts. I just remarked that this is not a solution for a bad idea. The example of DMCA should make the relevance more vivid as there are a lot of parallels.
- llamaimperative 2y ago> It is also relevant to determine the prevalence of legal certainty. If the latter is low, you involve the courts This is not how/when/why courts get involved. And no, the law itself can be perfectly fine and the court system can be too slow. Mixing the two problems makes it impossible to solve when neither problem is actually impossible.