in reply to Re: Re: Re: legality of extracting content from websites
in thread legality of extracting content from websites

We are into "How lawyers get rich". If a service is provided with a set of terms for use. Should we live/work/play by the meaning/spirit of the agreement, or live by the loopholes. (e.g. people, religion, holy book - can a person obey the EXACT terms of a holy book, be a religious member in good standing, and still be eligable for the afterlife that has no joy?)

Another example. What happens to Perl Monks if every user stretches every rule to just short of the breaking point, then cries "but your rules don't say I can't!". (Don't go there I have 2 teenage boys who have discovered that "go to bed" includes more than getting under the covers. We had a session where I was VERY explicit, quiet but explicit. The next night I offered them the choice of "go to bed" in the spirit it was intended, or we could use the 23 minute version again. They took the short version.

Can we write laws to be totaly unambuous? If we do, do you want to live here?

Food for thought
John

  • Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: legality of extracting content from websites

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: legality of extracting content from websites
by allolex (Curate) on Jul 15, 2003 at 23:56 UTC

    Hmm. Since your post was a reply to my node about the difference between something that is illegal and something that violates a contract, I'm left to guess you are reading a little to much in between the lines. :)

    Aside from that, I would agree with the idea that people should stick to the spirit of their agreements.

    As to the question of whether we can have laws that are totally unambiguous, the answer is a definite maybe. The reason lawyers have to study so long is due in part to the need for them to learn legal English. In legal English, many words have slightly more restricted meanings than the way we use them in a day-to-day basis. And while everyday language is evolving, the legal language is much more static. But even carefully-worded documents like the US constitution are subject to this change because through time, its interpreters become less and less capable of understanding the possible nuances of the original document. Even when time does not confuse the issue, there is a huge difference between how a legal expert might interpret something and the way a layperson like myself would. (Also remember that a lot of politicians have no legal training, either.)

    And total unambiguity is a very desireable thing---a utopia, in fact. It's not happening any time soon, but yes, I would gladly live in a world where laws were completely unambiguous. At the very least, it would keep politicians very busy fixing outdated laws and at the very best, it would eliminate injustice, assuming the lawmakers are democratic and believe in minority rights. :)

    --
    Allolex

[reply]
      Howdy!

      On the possibility of writing laws to be completely unambiguous:

      Except for trivial cases, no way! I think Godel's proof that Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica was a fool's errand applies here as well. There will always be cases at the edges that cannot be decided simply according to the letter of the law. Judicial interpretation and decision will be required -- judgement. Case law can refine but never perfect statute law.

      This is true of any sufficiently non-trivial system of logic (for a broad application of the term).

      yours,
      Michael

[reply]

In Section Meditations