Still not answering my most burning question: How does this work with copyright etc.?
Do they just ignore it, assuming that doing the right thing in an emergency situation will be made legal later?
I'd be really interested in their legal argument/analysis and decision-making (whether it's "the emergency changes what represent fair use", "there are laws that allow extraordinary measures in case of emergencies and we claim it's that", or "screw this paper-pushing bullshit and do what's right").
And regardless of this, I fully support this decision of course.
Do they just ignore it, assuming that doing the right thing in an emergency situation will be made legal later?
I'd be really interested in their legal argument/analysis and decision-making (whether it's "the emergency changes what represent fair use", "there are laws that allow extraordinary measures in case of emergencies and we claim it's that", or "screw this paper-pushing bullshit and do what's right").
And regardless of this, I fully support this decision of course.