Re: OT:Copyright, was Re: Generation of permutations

[dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)]

tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:<FnWz8.4425$eZ6.2697016331@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>

> it, then sue them, I suspect a judge might be convinced 
> to look askance at my actions.

The law is based on statute and on precedence of case law,
not on Tom Moran's suspicions.

After all, consider the case of the lawyer who bought a
dozen rare cigars and insured them against all loss. He
then smoked them, and claimed insurance on the grounds 
that they had been consumed in separate small fires.

The insurance company refused to pay up. The lawyer sued.

Now I would not be surprised if the principle of TMS (Tom
Moran Suspicions [as to what the law should be]) would
expect the judge to throw the case out. But in fact the
judge ruled that the contract did not exempty this case
of fire, and the insurance company had to pay $15,000.

(the end of this story is that the lawyer was then charged
with 12 counts of arson -- you can't go around deliberately
burning up your property to collect the insurance. He was
found guilty, sentenced to 24 months probation, and ordered
to pay a fine of $24,000 :-)

This story is reported as true in a competition to find the
most notorious case of strange law.

But anyway, anyone counting on being protected for copyright violation
by appealing to TMS is taking a risk!