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.
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.