Posted by Jim on 11/16/72 11:50

In article <ZCAkg.34440$jb.237779@wagner.videotron.net>, NRen2k5 wrote:
>>>> In article <vswkg.33162$jb.212367@wagner.videotron.net>, NRen2k5 wrote:
>>>>>> Still, I, and many others, want to know how the various online music
>>>>>> stores and player manufacturers are breaking the law.
>>>>> Apple. Not "various online music stores and player manufacturers". *Apple*.
>>>>>
>>>> Apple are not breaking the law. If you can prove otherwise then do so,
>>>> otherwise it remains your *opinion* that Apple are doing something illegal.
>>> And it is your opinion that they are not breaking the law. Until you can
>>> prove so, that is *your* opinion.
>>
>> Actually, no. You asserted that they are breaking the law. It's up to
>> YOU to prove your assertion, or at least supply sufficient evidence that
>> what you say is actually the case.
>>
>> The assumption, at least in the American system, is that you are NOT
>> violating the law, and are innocent until such time as you are proved
>> to be guilty. You don't have to prove your innocence - it's simply
>> assumed.
>
> And it is only an assumption.

Oddly not the case. You *are* innocent until you are *proven* to be guilty.
There's no 'assumption' about it.

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
JediGeeks http://www.jedigeeks.com
"Ah, gentle dames, it gars me greet, To think how monie councels sweet,
How monie lengthen'd, sage advices, The Husband frae the wife despises!"

[Back to original message]