Posted by jayembee on 11/06/06 15:58

spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:

>> Whether the copyright laws can (and should) be repealed is another
>> issue. As long as they *are* the law, they are binding.
>
> They are not binding in terms of the consent of the governed.
>
> Let me prove that to you. Imagine that I gave you a copy of
> copyrighted material. I did not charge you for it, only for the
> cost of the DVD disc. Then you have me indicted for violating
> this "law" you claim binds me.
>
> I require a trial by a jury of my peers, who are fellow Houstonians.
> I select a jury that is reasonable. I present my case, as I have
> here. I claim Fair Use because you fall under the definition of a
> friend. You are an acquaintance, you are not hostile to me, etc.
> (see earlier post for a discussion of the definition of "friend").
>
> The jury deliberates and one juror among the 12 jurors agrees with
> me for whatever reason. He or she votes "Not Guilty". He or she
> does not have to justify his or her vote. If pressured to give a
> reason, he or she says "the persecution failed to make its case
> beyond all reasonable doubt".
>
> Because of the hung jury (assuming one or more jurors voted
> "Guilty") I am exonerated because I maintain my innocence. The
> persecution is going to have to try me a secnd time, which is
> very unlikely because he/she/it knows that I am protected by
> Fair Use.
>
> Therefore the law you claim is binding is not really binding -

Horseshit. If you really believe that, then *no* law is binding.
You could murder someone, maintain your innocence, and if one
juror out of twelve believes you and votes "Not Guilty", you are
exhonerated of your crime.

That in no way means that laws against murder are "non-binding".

-- jayembee

[Back to original message]