Posted by Tarkus on 11/07/06 07:37

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 05:30:28 GMT, jayembee wrote:

> Anthony Marsh <anthony_marsh@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> jayembee wrote:
>>> spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
>>>
>>>> jayembee <jayembeenospam@snurcher.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore the law you claim is binding is not really binding -
>>>>> Horseshit. If you really believe that, then *no* law is binding.
>>>> That does not follow from what I have stated.
>>>
>>> Sure it does. You set up a hypothetical case where you'd be given
>>> a trial for violating copyright, and then arguing that a single
>>> juror voting "Not Guilty" exonerates you, and that this means
>>> that the law against copyright violation is not binding.
>>>
>>> How does that differ from any other crime? The criminal trial jury
>>> "exonerated" OJ Simpson on the charge of murder. Does that mean
>>> that the law against murder is not binding?
>>
>> But in the OJ Simpson case and almost every other case it take a
>> unanimous finding of the jurors, not just one juror.
>
> Bob's original point was that if eleven jurors think he's guilty,
> and one obstinate juror votes "not guilty", there's no verdict of
> guilt. And that if the charge is copyright violation, then the
> lack of a guilty verdict renders the law non-binding.

Isn't copyright law a civil matter, in which case neither a unanimous
verdict nor reasonable doubt applies? (As in the second OJ trial.)

[Back to original message]