I already spelled this out for you, but I guess I'm going to have to do it again.
The legislature passing a new bill about punishing copyright violators will not change the judiciary's mind about who violators are. The judiciary is more likely to look at existing precedent, e.g.: the case in the cited article. The legislature and judiciary are completely different governing bodies, and it is the judiciary who gets to decide who violators are, not Congress (explicitly so, as Congress can make no law that directly punishes a specific entity, company or otherwise, so they essentially can't say "YouTube is a violator").
But even if you don't buy that argument, you're still forgetting that all of this hinges not on the bill itself, but whether or not the court system changes its mind about the past rulings, so you should be writing your judges, not your congressmen. That's why I said this:
But it's okay. I forgive you. Not everyone can understand US law.
Yep. You can argue anything, so I don't know why you're sticking to this argument so stubbornly. People argue in court that spilling coffee on themselves caused mental distress, or that it is negligence of a house owner if a man breaking into the house falls and cuts himself on a discarded knife. Both of those are real court cases. So what? The only thing that matters is the ruling, and the precedent it sets.Ribonuge said:
This doesn't prove anything at all. Viacom can say whatever they want. Neither of our opinions matters. I have no opinion. The opinion that I stated, and follow, is the US judiciary's opinion. Viacom argued with the judiciary, they were told to go home.Ribonuge said:
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the United States works, which is a shame, because the whole 'separation of powers' thing is pretty central to our government.Ribonuge said:
The legislature passing a new bill about punishing copyright violators will not change the judiciary's mind about who violators are. The judiciary is more likely to look at existing precedent, e.g.: the case in the cited article. The legislature and judiciary are completely different governing bodies, and it is the judiciary who gets to decide who violators are, not Congress (explicitly so, as Congress can make no law that directly punishes a specific entity, company or otherwise, so they essentially can't say "YouTube is a violator").
But even if you don't buy that argument, you're still forgetting that all of this hinges not on the bill itself, but whether or not the court system changes its mind about the past rulings, so you should be writing your judges, not your congressmen. That's why I said this:
I noticed you specifically didn't reply to this particular remark. Probably because you didn't realize it's the judiciary system that decides cases, rather than the legislature, which makes laws.
But it's okay. I forgive you. Not everyone can understand US law.
