4 ms·

And also, if the technical line of argument were found meaningful, it could also be used for absurdities: "no, your honor, my website didn't display copyrighted

by gspr 4y ago

And also, if the technical line of argument were found meaningful, it could also be used for absurdities: "no, your honor, my website didn't display copyrighted images without a license – it merely gave the visitors' browsers some instructions which they happened to interpret in a way that resulted in them causing some pixels on a screen to light up in a way that somewhat resembles the copyrighted images".

bombcar 4y ago
Technical people often see law as a form of code, and the judge as a form of code executing computer, able to be tricked by literal interpretations. It doesn't often really work out that way.
- gspr 4y ago
  Indeed. And even though I consider myself a technical person through and through, I wouldn't want the law to work like that. We, as humans, are not capable of specifying society's functioning at that precision. We need the fuzziness of humans in the loop.
  - giomasce 4y ago
    Neither would I. Though every now and then I wouldn't dislike to be bound to rules that I can evaluate in advance, without having to bet on what a judge's a posteriori interpretation will be.
    - gspr 4y ago
      I agree. But other times I'd also very much dislike being bound by "code" that the democratically elected lawmakers agree is buggy (buggy compared to their and the electorate's intentions).
    - bombcar 4y ago
      This is one of the services lawyers who are specialized in the area can provide; they will know the case law around particular rules, etc. Tax Law is especially interesting here, because you can basically depend on what the IRS has said but there's a chance that even if they said X, the tax court will actually rule Y (in your favor). Sometimes the risk can be worth it (if you made a good-faith effort to comply with a reasonable understanding of the law, and the court rules against you, you just have to pay the tax; even if you were found unreasonable you pay the tax + penalty which often isn't that much).

by gspr 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago

Technical people often see law as a form of code, and the judge as a form of code executing computer, able to be tricked by literal interpretations. It doesn't often really work out that way.

gspr 4y ago
Indeed. And even though I consider myself a technical person through and through, I wouldn't want the law to work like that. We, as humans, are not capable of specifying society's functioning at that precision. We need the fuzziness of humans in the loop.
- giomasce 4y ago
  Neither would I. Though every now and then I wouldn't dislike to be bound to rules that I can evaluate in advance, without having to bet on what a judge's a posteriori interpretation will be.
  - gspr 4y ago
    I agree. But other times I'd also very much dislike being bound by "code" that the democratically elected lawmakers agree is buggy (buggy compared to their and the electorate's intentions).
  - bombcar 4y ago
    This is one of the services lawyers who are specialized in the area can provide; they will know the case law around particular rules, etc. Tax Law is especially interesting here, because you can basically depend on what the IRS has said but there's a chance that even if they said X, the tax court will actually rule Y (in your favor). Sometimes the risk can be worth it (if you made a good-faith effort to comply with a reasonable understanding of the law, and the court rules against you, you just have to pay the tax; even if you were found unreasonable you pay the tax + penalty which often isn't that much).