You can't apply naïve transitive reasoning to law. Law is not code. Your assertions are meaningless and unsupported noise until they're actually tried in a court.
[−]partloyaldemon · 2026-11-15 Sun 15:45 UTC ·
link
Was your assertion tried in court? legal reasoning is naïve transitive reasoning.
[−]rookienumbers30 · 2026-11-15 Sun 15:55 UTC ·
link
a statement *about* the legal system can be true without being litigated *in* the legal system. Courts rely on precedent in addition to logical argument, so their rulings cannot be deduced from rational argument alone.
The US copyright office is not the body that owns interpretation of the law though. They don’t determine in court if an artifact can be protected by copyright law.
The USCO is the regulatory and administrative authority and will inform the decisions of judges. They provide expert legal opinion that carries substantial weight.
It would be a surprising result for the courts to overturn the USCO. The courts routinely side with the USCO.
What the USCO is saying is a temperature check on how this will play out.
It would be a surprising result for the courts to overturn the USCO. The courts routinely side with the USCO.
What the USCO is saying is a temperature check on how this will play out.