Posted by Stephen Adams on 11/16/28 11:50

NRen2k5 <nomore@email.com> writes:
>Stephen Adams wrote:
>> NRen2k5 <nomore@email.com> writes:
>>
>>> Jim 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.

No, a *presumption* - that is, you ARE innocent until proven guilty.
It's thus up to YOu to prove Apple to be behaving illegally - with
specificity,

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

[Back to original message]