Posted by Anthony Marsh on 11/07/06 23:19

Tarkus wrote:
> 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.)


There are both civil and criminal prosecutions.
But yes, your point about civil trials is helpful.

[Back to original message]