[kwlug-disc] Don Marti on copyright and pro-trust laws

R. Brent Clements rbclemen at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 19:01:00 EDT 2011


The idea of individual jurors being able to decide whether a law
applies or not is pretty much anarchy.  It is the jurors duty to fit
the facts of the case to the charges laid against the defendant.  It
isn't even left up to them to decide if the laws that are applied in
the case are the correct ones, with the exception of laws that have
various degrees of application.  Not applying the laws because of a
personal aversion to them is not that far from ignoring the laws when
it serves your interest.

Brent

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Chris Frey <cdfrey at foursquare.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 02:36:45PM -0400, unsolicited wrote:
>> Interesting.
>>
>> But:
>> - with a Harper majority, can we guarantee that there won't be an
>> enforcement subsidy?
>> - IANAL, and I don't have any topical experience, but could any
>> Canadian jury have an impact of nullifying a law? [It would have to go
>> to supreme court as a constitutional challenge? A lower judge couldn't
>> throw out a law because it isn't consistent with (copyright)
>> precedence, I wouldn't think.]
>>
>> Interesting bit, none the less. However I'm wary - it seems we all too
>> often extrapolate what we hear in the media about the U.S. as urban
>> myth applying to Canada in the same way. [Would be glad to be told
>> that is does apply in this case.]
>
>
> I shared the post more in the hopes of adding ideas when debating
> against TPM-like systems.  I'm not sure if anti-trust / pro-trust
> comparisons would hold any weight for the Conservatives, but as
> Russell has mentioned before, it is possible to frame copyright issues
> in ways friendly to either side, whether Conservative, Liberal, or NDP.
>
> As for jury nullification, it's an interesting idea that all jurors
> should know about, I think.  A juror should be able to decide a verdict
> based on his conscience, even in opposition to the law.  In this sense,
> a jury is higher than the judge and parliament, as I understand it,
> regardless of the instructions that a judge gives a jury before they
> begin deliberations.
>
>        The Supreme Court more recently issued a decision, R. v. Krieger
>        2006 SCC 47,[21] which confirmed that juries in Canada have the
>        power to refuse to apply the law when their consciences require
>        that they do so. Within this decision, it is stated that "juries
>        are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law -
>        but they do have the power to do so when their consciences permit
>        of no other course."
>                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Canada
>
> Delicately phrased.  We supposedly have no right to do it, but apparently
> we have the power to do it. :-)
>
> - Chris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
>



More information about the kwlug-disc mailing list