*Is it legitimate for you as a juror to rank rights and aspects of rights in deciding the conflict?*
Can you think of cases where this would be appropriate?
Another comes to mind:
A dispute between Peikoff’s Heir and Penguin Books. During the last few years of the copyright for Atlas Shrugged, Penguin starts printing it. Peikoff’s Heir shows a good case for there still being a few years left. Penguin makes a good case that the copyright has lapsed. The evidence comes down evenly, like it does in Night of January… I would be more afraid of getting it wrong and wronging the legitimate copyright owner of Atlas Shrugged, than I would be afraid of getting it wrong and wronging Penguin’s right to free use of anything in public domain.
Even if the evidence was 60-40 in Penguin’s favor, I would still exercise my bias and rule for Peikoff’s Heir. My only excuse for this bias, is that I acknowledge a superior quality in copyright: it’s unique application to a specific work—versus the lesser right to freely print stuff written by long-dead people. I’m fallible, and if I rule in error for Penguin, I hurt Peikoff’s Heir *a lot.* If I rule in error for Peikoff’s Heir, I hurt Penguin *very little*, and I care very little, because there is plenty of free stuff for them to profit from, they’re not even creators, for goodness, sake.
Is this terrible, or does it make any sense?
By the way, Aaron, is it ok if I repost what you’ve written in post 76 to the thread I started in the general forum? Then we can leave this thread to the poll issue.