🚀 go-pugleaf

telford@xenon.triode.net.au wrote:

> You are looking very closely at the fine details while carefully ignoring
> the big picture. The fact is that in the USA and in other countries
> copyright is being used to intimidate small developers and we can fully
> expect this trend to continue in Australia. The FTA is a big step in
> the direction of driving small developers out of the software industry.
> 

Yes there seems to be a dearth of hard evidence. Leaving aside the 
printer cartridge issue, which the compatible manufacturers seem to be 
winning anyway, the only cases I seen judgments for have involved people 
doing manifestly dishonest things, or are not attacks on small 
developers. The big copyright case (SCO v IBM) can hardly be described 
as an attempt to intimidate small developers.

>>Actually, my "concrete evidence" point is probably just muddying the 
>>waters. You don't have to go out and search for evidence for and against 
>>your belief, and then form a judgement.
> 
> This is ridiculous, how can any reasonable person form a belief without
> evidence either for or against?

People do it all the time. Given that the belief of necessity has to be 
false for the defence to exist in the first place, it is clear that it 
cannot be based on reasoned analysis of evidence, but is just a view 
that is held by the believer.

> So the interpretation of vague terms like "results in" becomes pivotal
> in whether developers get a criminal record -- how comforting.

But it has ever been so. If the law is written a way that attempts to 
more precisely describe the situation, it can end up capturing conduct 
which should not reasonably be considered criminal, or can fail to 
capture conduct that should be so considered.

Look at

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/41/0/PA000300.htm

and in particular subsection 2.

Suppose there's a noisy protest of progress. Two vendors show up on the 
scene. One of them is selling pizzas, and the other is selling house bricks.

A person buys a pizza, and throws it through an open window, where the 
hot cheese damages a painting. Another person buys a brick and throws it 
through the same window, and it damages an adjacent painting.

What view should we take of the two vendors? Should they both be 
considered guilty under the "results in" rule, or both considered not 
guilty?

In reality, I'm sure a court would convict the brick seller, and not the 
pizza seller, which requires a subtle distinction in the meaning of 
"results in" for the two cases. It would be difficult to find a wording 
that is not subject to interpretation, and has the desired result for 
any conceivable combination of circumstances.

Sylvia.