3 ms·

You seem to be trying to argue against the law. As onion2k says, courts consider intent. They will decide if you intended for your customers to break the law, a

by rlpb 10y ago

You seem to be trying to argue against the law. As onion2k says, courts consider intent. They will decide if you intended for your customers to break the law, and were complicit in the breaking of the law, or not. They will only consider real cases, not hypothetical. > "Warning, this knife can sever arteries.". Is this better? The courts take things in context. If it was sold by a gangster with that wording used for the purpose of informing customers that it can be used to kill people, then that's one thing. If it's used as a warning label so that adults know to keep the knife away from their children for safety, that's another. Courts are not blind; they are supposed to look at context and intent. You seem to consider the law as some kind of mathematical function where the same input always results in the same output. This is indeed the aim, but context matters. The law doesn't ignore context, so you cannot expect to do so either. You might find it helpful to read "What Colour are your bits?": http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 That article talks about copyright, but the point about the law seeing context, and the same nonsense conclusions when attempting to use logic but ignore context, remains the same.

ominous 10y ago
See, you say one might get to "nonsense conclusions when attempting to use logic but ignore context", but you used "They will decide if you intended" without flinching. Or did you flinch? "They will decide" I thought the intent was mine. How can my intent be decided? My intent was to kill time. And I have read "What Colour are your bits" before. "The trouble is, human beings are not in general Colour-blind." They are. Truth is, they are. There is no "Colour sense". You can't tell if this pipe was from your grandfather, mine, or if it was 3D printed 10 minutes ago. I could lie to you, you would believe it, and be Wrong. We pretend we see Colour. We tell each other the Colour of everything all the time, because we can't see it. Just as we pretend family matters, and borders exist, and anger is something we must act upon and the sky is up and the floor is down, and fashion is a thing. We pretend these things all the time. I sometimes pretend to want to work where I am right now. "This idea of Colour is a problem for communication between those of us who work in the world of computers, where Colour does not exist, and those of us who work in the law, where Colour exists and is important." Colour does not exist anywhere. If everyone forgot it, no one would be able to find it again. Other Colours would be created. And we would pretend to like them with the same strength. When you buy a combat knife, are you buying a killing artifact? Are you buying a weight? A memento of culture? Army supplies? The world functions because we agree on a lot of things. You seem to agree that Colour exists and the Combat Knife is deadly, but the Americana Knife is not, and the metal assembly is just scrap. Only by force you will convince anyone that Colour exists and it is important. So you will never be right, you will just have won. And the Federation Against Copyright Theft won, and we pretend they are right. I disagree. Also, > "Set-top boxes loaded with apps and add-ons allowing access to copyright infringing material are very much illegal and anyone involved in selling these boxes should not be surprised to receive a knock on the door," Kieron Sharp, director general of Fact The box itself is illegal. An illegal computer. My computer is also illegal right now. Let's pretend this makes sense.
- rlpb 10y ago
  > How can my intent be decided? By a court. Depending on where you live, you may end up with a jury of your peers making the decision. The court system will make a decision and for legal purposes that decision, not the truth, is what will matter. It isn't perfect since we can't read minds. But it's the best system we have.
  - ominous 10y ago
    "and for legal purposes that decision, not the truth, is what will matter." Thank you for your patience.
pc86 10y ago
Yet another non-attorney on HN attempting to parse law as if it's code. It's common to point of it barely being worth discussing anything legal. Attorneys and courts have a wide berth with which to determine what a person's intent was. Instances where you can thumb your nose at basic jurisprudence and get off on a technicality of the text of the law is exceedingly rare.
- ominous 10y ago
  Rules are made because people want to break them. If everyone agreed, there would be no need for rules. Don't treat those who disagree as if they were wrong. They are just the reason those rules exist, one as legitimate as the other.

by rlpb 10y ago

ominous 10y ago

See, you say one might get to "nonsense conclusions when attempting to use logic but ignore context", but you used "They will decide if you intended" without flinching. Or did you flinch? "They will decide" I thought the intent was mine. How can my intent be decided? My intent was to kill time. And I have read "What Colour are your bits" before. "The trouble is, human beings are not in general Colour-blind." They are. Truth is, they are. There is no "Colour sense". You can't tell if this pipe was from your grandfather, mine, or if it was 3D printed 10 minutes ago. I could lie to you, you would believe it, and be Wrong. We pretend we see Colour. We tell each other the Colour of everything all the time, because we can't see it. Just as we pretend family matters, and borders exist, and anger is something we must act upon and the sky is up and the floor is down, and fashion is a thing. We pretend these things all the time. I sometimes pretend to want to work where I am right now. "This idea of Colour is a problem for communication between those of us who work in the world of computers, where Colour does not exist, and those of us who work in the law, where Colour exists and is important." Colour does not exist anywhere. If everyone forgot it, no one would be able to find it again. Other Colours would be created. And we would pretend to like them with the same strength. When you buy a combat knife, are you buying a killing artifact? Are you buying a weight? A memento of culture? Army supplies? The world functions because we agree on a lot of things. You seem to agree that Colour exists and the Combat Knife is deadly, but the Americana Knife is not, and the metal assembly is just scrap. Only by force you will convince anyone that Colour exists and it is important. So you will never be right, you will just have won. And the Federation Against Copyright Theft won, and we pretend they are right. I disagree. Also, > "Set-top boxes loaded with apps and add-ons allowing access to copyright infringing material are very much illegal and anyone involved in selling these boxes should not be surprised to receive a knock on the door," Kieron Sharp, director general of Fact The box itself is illegal. An illegal computer. My computer is also illegal right now. Let's pretend this makes sense.

rlpb 10y ago
> How can my intent be decided? By a court. Depending on where you live, you may end up with a jury of your peers making the decision. The court system will make a decision and for legal purposes that decision, not the truth, is what will matter. It isn't perfect since we can't read minds. But it's the best system we have.
- ominous 10y ago
  "and for legal purposes that decision, not the truth, is what will matter." Thank you for your patience.

pc86 10y ago

Yet another non-attorney on HN attempting to parse law as if it's code. It's common to point of it barely being worth discussing anything legal. Attorneys and courts have a wide berth with which to determine what a person's intent was. Instances where you can thumb your nose at basic jurisprudence and get off on a technicality of the text of the law is exceedingly rare.

ominous 10y ago
Rules are made because people want to break them. If everyone agreed, there would be no need for rules. Don't treat those who disagree as if they were wrong. They are just the reason those rules exist, one as legitimate as the other.