[WikiEN-l] Are movie trailers "free enough" for Commons?

[Ray Saintonge]

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> I take the opposite tack.  Until we find some case law that  "exercises" the 
> statute law, we really have no clear way to interpret what that  statute law 
> really means.  We can make interpretations of it, but we cannot  rule out other 
> interpretations that could be gleaned from it as well.  And  we all know how 
> widely disparate various interpretations of the same law  can be. 
>  
>  
> In a message dated 9/8/2008 3:01:39 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
> geniice at gmail.com writes:
>
> It could  but until we find some case law that goes against statute law
> we accept  state law.
>
>   
I think that WJ's interpretation here is closer to reality.  Case law 
only rarely completely invalidates (or "goes against") statute law.  
Often when it seems that way it has only brought in a previously ignored 
provision that seems to make the legal point being applied no longer 
applicable.  This is interpretation, not invalidation.  Indeed, most 
cases are not directed toward establishing that the statute is wrong, 
but that it does not apply in the given circumstances.

"Exercising" the statute law is an interesting choice of concepts.  If a 
watch-dog is not regularly exercised, he may find that his ability to 
chase the burglars has atrophied when the real opportunity arises.

An obsessive practice for making legal definitions more precise is bound 
to fail, because each new definition introduces new terms which are 
themselves subject to interpretation.

Ec