Judge: File-swapping tools are legal

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Citizen Bob, Nov 2, 2006.

  1. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Mon, 6 Nov 2006, PTravel wrote :
    Finally - an admission of defeat from you.
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 6, 2006
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. No, but apparent eveidence that you are not familiar with Godwin's Law?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

    Reductio ad Hitlerum
     
    Richard Crowley, Nov 6, 2006
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    They won't go after the big criminals. Professional courtesy.


    --

    "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
     
    Citizen Bob, Nov 6, 2006
    #83
  4. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    That does not represent the consent of the governed.

    Only a jury of one's peers can decide the consent of the governed.


    --

    "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
     
    Citizen Bob, Nov 6, 2006
    #84
  5. Citizen Bob

    jayembee Guest

    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?

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Nov 6, 2006
    #85
  6. But in the OJ Simpson case and almost every other case it take a
    unanimous finding of the jurors, not just one juror.
     
    Anthony Marsh, Nov 7, 2006
    #86
  7. Citizen Bob

    ptravel Guest

    It's not an admission of defeat. I have no intention in engaging in
    conversation with anyone who thinks that name-calling is an adequate
    substitute for facts.

    Grow up, and someone may take you seriously.
     
    ptravel, Nov 7, 2006
    #87
  8. Citizen Bob

    Quanta Guest


    Your position was bigoted and prejudiced and uninformed as well. How nice.
     
    Quanta, Nov 7, 2006
    #88
  9. Citizen Bob

    Quanta Guest


    Idiot.
     
    Quanta, Nov 7, 2006
    #89
  10. Citizen Bob

    Quanta Guest

    Finally a statement of fact.
     
    Quanta, Nov 7, 2006
    #90
  11. Citizen Bob

    Mark Jones Guest

    In this case, the analogy is actually appropriate. You are advocating
    blind obedience to what an authority figure says, when the reality
    is that a juror is free to vote guilty or not guilty without having to
    explain to anyone exactly how they arrived at their decision.

    The best way to prevent tyranny is to never grant absolute
    authority to anyone when you don't have to.
     
    Mark Jones, Nov 7, 2006
    #91
  12. Citizen Bob

    Mark Jones Guest

    In my opinion this does not apply because what PTravel is
    advocating has some striking parallels to what allows people
    in authority to gain absolute power.
     
    Mark Jones, Nov 7, 2006
    #92
  13. Citizen Bob

    Mark Jones Guest

    If she lied before she was sworn in as a juror, I can see how
    she would be in trouble. It all depends upon the questions that
    were asked of her prior to jury selection. If she always told the
    truth to every question she was asked, it isn't her fault if the
    lawyers or judge failed to ask the right questions.

    I wouldn't want to have to decide a case like this because it
    is one of those that sounds like jury nullification, but looks
    like it could have been intentional to throw the trial before
    it even started. This is a tough one, no matter what decision
    is reached.
     
    Mark Jones, Nov 7, 2006
    #93
  14. Citizen Bob

    jayembee Guest

    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.

    But that's not really the point. The real point is that whether a
    jury renders a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty doesn't affect
    whether the law being violated is binding or not binding. That
    the process and the result is the same regardless of whether the
    crime is copyright violation or murder.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Nov 7, 2006
    #94
  15. Citizen Bob

    jayembee Guest

    Maybe he's simply applying Godwin's Law.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Nov 7, 2006
    #95
  16. Citizen Bob

    Mark Jones Guest

    I read the case history and final outcome and I am glad the the final
    ruling was in her favor. In my opinion, the entire selection process
    needs to be cleaned up. The only thing that a person should be asked
    is if they know any of the court officers involved in the case. The idea
    of stacking the jury flies in the face of the idea of an impartial jury.
     
    Mark Jones, Nov 7, 2006
    #96
  17. Citizen Bob

    Tarkus Guest

    Isn't copyright law a civil matter, in which case neither a unanimous
    verdict nor reasonable doubt applies? (As in the second OJ trial.)
     
    Tarkus, Nov 7, 2006
    #97
  18. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Citizen Bob wrote :
    That would be 12 people out of 300 million, then?
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 7, 2006
    #98
  19. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Mark Jones wrote :
    I wasn't asked any questions about my views on various legal matters
    during my jury service (this is in England).
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 7, 2006
    #99
  20. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Citizen Bob wrote :
    Whereas 'PTravel' would have had them on the end of a rope...
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 7, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.