3 ms·
Specifics of the particular case aside, I do not like that Google has the weight to simply buck the system if it disagrees with it. It sets a terrible precedent
by lmkg 17y ago
Specifics of the particular case aside, I do not like that Google has the weight to simply buck the system if it disagrees with it. It sets a terrible precedent. The legislative process for changing the laws is flawed, but there are good reasons it exists: for example, multiple voices and interests can express their concerns.
I think it's a rationally defensible position that, in the books case, Google is substituting an democratic process for an enlightened dictatorship. If nothing else, that's a problem because it's a single point of failure. Obviously, that way of phrasing my viewpoint is rather severe and totally loaded, but I think it's also a concise summary of both my opinions and my feelings on the topic.
- pohl 17y agoGiven that the judiciary and the legislative branch have equal footing in the founding documents, how is democracy being side-stepped?
- lmkg 17y agoThe judiciary branch had to intervene to prevent Google from sidestepping the law, which they were attempting to do. If Google had gone to the courts to try to upend copyright law, that would be using a democratic process. That's not what Google did; they ignored the law, and the judiciary branch was invoked by someone else to step in and stop them.
- pohl 17y agoIn the end, it is the court's opinion on the legality of their actions that matters, not how the case came before it.