Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> 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