On 17 Feb 2006 at 21:14, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 17.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > > I don't see how they could have known better, as they were operating > > under the to-then-standard interpretation of the applicable UK > > copyright law. > > I am by no means a lawer, but I believe you do not fully understand > how European law functions. There are aspects of European law which > are above national law. There are other aspects where national law has > to be changed to comply with European standards. And there are aspects > where national law still stands above European law (when it touches > constitutional aspects, but I believe the UK doesn't have a > constitution.)
Well, you're right -- I don't know that much about how European law operates. I do know that the UK tries to keep itself somewhat separate from the rest of Europe. I also know that the law considered in the appeals decision was entirely UK law. Indeed, the decision explicitly rejects as a basis for its findings a French decision in Sawkins's favor. That seems to indicate that it's not just me who thinks that European law doesn't apply, but also the judges on the UK appeals court who heard the case. But perhaps they were wrong and you, the non-lawyer who lives outside the UK, actually understand the applicable law better than sitting UK judges. > Whatever the case, it is becoming a little boring now. I've found it quite boring to have to repeatedly reiterate the facts of the case, yes. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
