167
this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
167 points (99.4% liked)
Legal News
432 readers
10 users here now
International and local legal news.
Basic rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag
Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules apply
All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A very worrying take by that judge, but it befits Trump's America.
Market harm is supposed to mean the market for a particular work. For example, when everyone torrent a movie, then that movie will plausibly sell fewer copies. That means there's less economic incentive to produce movies. That directly undercuts the purpose of copyright.
Me, I think we might be better off without expensive movies, if the price is a censorship infrastructure.
This judge seems to understand market harm to mean that incumbents lose market share. Well, that can happen when new technologies arise. Copyright is constitutionally limited to encouraging new developments. No law in any sector provides for a right to a market share. To the contrary, attempting to secure such a right may be a felony under antitrust laws.