Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> writes: > Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> Yeah and if a drunktard judge rules that the sky is green Hyman would >> believe that the sky is green until a higher court says that that the >> sky isn't green. > > This has nothing to do with belief. If a court says that you > have illegally prepared a derivative work, then that's what > you have done, because the court rules.
Uh no. What you have done is what you have physically done. The court does not _rule_ about that. It may _find_ what you have actually done. Whether or not it is wrong about this finding has no legal consequences: it has physical consequences for you. If the findings are later found to be wrong, that does not affect the validity of the legal argument (and thus its consequences as a precendence). What the court _does_ rule about is what your physical acts _mean_ according to the law, and what legal consequences the classification of your acts have according to the law. > That's what courts do. No. They don't tell me what I have done. They tell me what laws correspond with what I have done. The can't _rule_ that the sky is green, but they may hypothetically _find_ that the sky is green and rule according to that finding. What a higher court does may depend on its revisiting the evidence. >> Stop being utter idiot Hyman. > > Why? You never have. You can say that again. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
