View Single Post
Old 08-24-2012, 03:28 AM   #61
pdurrant
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
pdurrant's Avatar
 
Posts: 74,138
Karma: 315558334
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Oasis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon View Post
(Ever notice how the express "the exception proves the rule" is ambiguous? "Proves" can mean "tests," and my suspicion is that the expression mean that the existence of an exception shows that there isn't a rule in the first place.)
Wikipedia puts it well.

"The phrase is derived from the medieval Latin legal principle exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis ("the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted"), a concept first proposed by Cicero in his defence of Lucius Cornelius Balbus.[1] This means a stated exception implies the existence of a rule to which it is the exception. The second part of Cicero's phrase, "in casibus non exceptis" or "in cases not excepted," is almost always missing from modern uses of the statement that "the exception proves the rule," which may contribute to frequent confusion and misuse of the phrase."

And so the fact the the Librarian of Congress has given permission for personal use of DRM removal software for ebooks in a certain case demonstrates that there is a general prohibition on doing so.

Since two of the US appeal courts have given different rulings on the matter, it's plainly not clear enough, and it may be that the US Supreme Court will eventually decide the matter.

Or, perhaps, the law will be repealed.... or the horse will sing.

Last edited by pdurrant; 08-24-2012 at 03:31 AM.
pdurrant is offline   Reply With Quote