Cerebralbore101 said:
Zkuq said:
1. I'm not familiar enough with your history to be able to answer to this properly. If you can provide be me a short elaboration, I'll gladly look into it however. Anyway, if a judge's judgement on a matter isn't the official interpretation of the law and thus effectively the law, I don't know what is. Whether that's the correct interpretation of the law might be questionable of course. Maybe you should have a system for fixing judges' errors, but I'd say that's an entirely different issue. Getting back to the actual emulator topic though: Which copyrighted property do you think emulators are violating?
2. I'm not stupid. I know very well something being illegal has nothing to do with its existence. Laws need enforcement to be effective. Anyway, your arguments 1 and 2 are seemingly separate and seemingly counter-arguments to two different arguments, while I only had one argument. Thus, it seemed odd that you seemed to be countering two different arguments when I only had one.
|
1. Google Dredd Scott.
2. You said that if emulators were illegal they wouldn't exist. Your argument was if A, then B. Or to put it another way, if A (the ground is wet) then B (it is raining). That form of argument isn't valid though, because the ground could still be wet from some other means, such as a burst damn. Affirming the consequent isn't a valid argument.
|
1. Thanks! Looks like too much reading to get a firm idea of whether the decision was sound or not, but I think I got a general idea of the case.
2. I guess I should have elaborated in the first place instead of assuming you'd understand what I meant. Technically my argument wasn't what you say it is, it just seems that way because of my poor expression. My bad.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for your answer to which part of emulators violates which copyrighted property, because I can't find any.
