Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathanael
Courts don't deal in principles, they deal in application of principles to specific situations. If you want to walk into court and tell the judge, "But the Sony case said it was legal to copy entire TV programs for purposes of time shifting, therefore it's also OK to photocopy in its entirety a book I own because the print's too small," without the bother of demonstrating to the court's satisfaction why the two situations are equivalent -- well, again, all I can say is good luck with that.
|
Courts most certainly do deal in principles-that's how they determine whether or not the precedents you cite apply. Admittedly they ask you (or your lawyer) to give them an argument as to why (or why not) the precedent should (not) apply, but that argument can be based either on similar facts or on the application of the same legal principle applied in the precedent.
As you say, when it comes down to the court accepting your argument-that really depends on how the judge feels that day. Do you feel lucky?