Originally Posted by gideongallery

seriously do you even know how the appeal court works.


so your arguement is that the win had nothing to do with the distinction between public transmission and public broadcast

but because they had better experts (which can't be presented at the appeal court level) or more detailed presentation (which can't happen because the trial doesn't happen again in front of the appeal court).

hell even if you watch some law tv shows you should know that
your not allowed to present new evidence, you don't retry the case, you simply argue (with very strict time limits) how the ruling is mistaken.

public transmission vs public broadcast was that arguement.