On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:51:05AM +0100, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:10:37AM +0000, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 03:22:56PM +0000, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > Simon Vallet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > 1=B0 To willingly edit, distribute to the public, or inform the public > > > > > about, in any form, a device[2] whose obvious purpose is to permit > > > > > unauthorized distribution of protected works > > > > Can someone tell me what 'obvious purpose' means here? [...] > > > The text is probably fuzzy on purpose. Until it is ruled by a court, it > > > will remain fuzzy. > > > > I thought French law was a code and did not rely so much on case > > rulings by courts. Have I misunderstood? > > Court ruling is done according to the law, but when the law is fuzzy, > the court will rule by interpreting the law the way it thinks it should. > For next ruling, the court would base its interpretation on previous > interpretations by other courts, ie jurisprudence.
For correctness, s/would/can/ Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
