If it's a crime to do X on a "table" and you do X on a not-table, by definition you're not committing a crime. Saying that you're getting away with a crime in such a situation is like saying that you're getting away with a crime by driving your car within the speed limit, whereas if you were an honest criminal and drove a little bit faster the police would be allowed to ticket you. If there are clearly demarcated limits that people are allowed to stay within, it's not a technicality whether you're on one side or the other.
>Let alone what the police will do to poor students sitting in their “tables” (you know, the ones with four legs and a small horizontal working surface).
Sorry, I don't understand the argument.
>Silly definitions enshrined into law are why cameras arbitrarily limit the length of the videos they will record, lest they be accused of being video equipment and thereby subject to additional tariffs.
What the alternative, given that the government wants to tax "professional video equipment" but not "consumer video equipment" and there's a gradient from one to the other?
If you want a less contrived example, where I live motorcycles require different licenses depending on their engine displacement, but since electric motorcycles have a displacement of 0, they can be ridden without registration or license. Is this due to oversight or to encourage use of electric motorcycles? Are people who ride electric motorcycles without a license getting away with exploiting a loophole, or are they using the law as intended?
Three wheeled cars used to be made to bypass the definition of what a car is and avoid needing to be subject to crash testing and other safety regulation. My parent's home is a complicated 'single-unit condo' which is as far as I can tell, basically a lie to get past regulations on building new houses.
I guess my point is, if you agree that the law is good then you should not want the definition to be easily bypassed with a loophole, and having something that's flexible helps a lot with this. And if the law is bad then you'll be glad for one though it makes things silly compared to repealing the law.
And if you see someone using a loophole for a law you like, especially if they are doing so in a cheeky way like the billionaires playing games with shell companies to avoid taxes, it's fair to be mad at them even if it's not "technically illegal".
imo. it's usually big players who have the time and the lawyers to exploit loopholes in the first place.
won't deny that there is downsides though
Silly definitions enshrined into law are why cameras arbitrarily limit the length of the videos they will record, lest they be accused of being video equipment and thereby subject to additional tariffs.