Posted by Citizen Bob on 11/07/06 16:07

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:21:14 GMT, jayembee
<jayembeenospam@snurcher.com> wrote:

>> 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.

It is not binding under the specific circumstances of the case being
tried.

>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?

You can't really be that stupid.


--

"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
--Clarence Darrow

[Back to original message]