> your goal...[is] to stop a stupid argument from convincing stupid people to make a stupid decision.

This is the best explanation of legal practice I have ever seen.

But... to be sent, the file is recreated a bunch of times right? Because a computer only ever copies, and never “moves”, right? How can it then possibly matter whether the 0b file was recreated by a computer from the instruction of copying the file (which then just turns into an instruction to create the file), or if it was created directly through instructing the computer to create the file?

Gah, something something colored bits. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

Computers do "move" files, in some cases, by updating the entry in the filesystem registry. In such a case, it might be that no change was made to the file on disk, so no copy was made at all.

I interpreted "provide a set of files for a court case" as some form of sending it either through the Internet or to some portable storage media. He also said "The client insisted we find and copy the original empty file from the original media", which also indicates that. I therefore intended "move" to mean "move from one storage media/computer to another". You're of course correct that if you "move" a file on one file system, the bits won't actually be copied (or moved) anywhere.

Sure, no argument. I was responding only to the "computer only ever copies" statement. Sometimes it's hard to know how literal someone is being. :)