Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Nov 2009 22:32 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 394704
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Intertwined?! What does that even mean?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intertwined
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/twine
As in a judge saying: "Well, we are not sure which law applies here, so we'll just have to pick arbitrary bits of each law to make a ruling on that?" No, that's not how it works.
Of course not. He's saying "more than one law applies, so let's see which takes precedence and on what issues". As you can imagine, it's not easy, which is one reason why lawsuits last so long. There's room for a lot of interpretation.
These are two different sets of laws. One is Copyright law, the other is Contract law. One is unilateral, the other is an exchange of obligations.
Two very different matters and there's no reason to mix them up.
Two very different matters and there's no reason to mix them up.
But you can't not mix them. Things fall under more than one law all the time.
If an employee of a bookstore steals books and resells them, which law should apply? There's straight out theft, there's breach of copyright, and there's breach of contract as an employee. Each with different penalties.
A judge's work is very hard for exactly this reason. Often they have to slice and dice all things involved incredibly thin to take all aspects into account.
Edited 2009-11-15 15:11 UTC
If an employee of a bookstore steals books and resells them, which law should apply? There's straight out theft, there's breach of copyright, and there's breach of contract as an employee. Each with different penalties.
Uhm, what? In this example, there is no breach of copyright at all. There's theft, selling of stolen goods, and possibly, depending on the employee contract, breach of contract. The first two fall under criminal law, the third under civil law.
You continuously say I don't know what I'm talking about, yet it is you who continuously show a total lack of understanding about copyright law.
Edited 2009-11-15 15:27 UTC





Member since:
2007-02-07
Intertwined?! What does that even mean? As in a judge saying: "Well, we are not sure which law applies here, so we'll just have to pick arbitrary bits of each law to make a ruling on that?" No, that's not how it works.
These are two different sets of laws. One is Copyright law, the other is Contract law. One is unilateral, the other is an exchange of obligations.
Two very different matters and there's no reason to mix them up.