|
|
Posted by khobar on 09/19/05 01:40
"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:3p2bc8F89n6pU1@individual.net...
> khobar wrote:
> > "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:3p17nrF8790pU1@individual.net...
> >
> >>khobar wrote:
> >>
> >>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>news:3om1pqF6hj27U1@individual.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Karrde wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Anonymous" <none> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:JNSdnSsxw7vjxL7eRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"B-Hate-Me" <BHateMe@home> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:AeidnSj-lv9Ry77eRVn-1w@comcast.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Nate" <thejedi@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:pdCUe.1652$vQ3.154@trnddc08...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Does any one have a copy of the Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith
movie
> >>>>>>>>without a counter display? Every copy i've downloaded so far is
just
> >>>
> >>>the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>same file with a different name and it has something like:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>You realize that you've just admitted to committing a felony
> >>>>>>>on a global newsgroup......Right?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>copyright infringement is not a felony. you can be sued, but it is
> >
> > not
> >
> >>>>>>illegal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Just because it's not a felony doesn't mean it's not illegal. At the
> >>>
> >>>very
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>least, it's a shitty thing to do. I've heard all of the attempts to
> >>>
> >>>justify
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>it, but it's still stealing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>OH, FFS! - When is this old chestnut going to be put to bed?
> >>>>- It is *not* stealing. The legal definition of stealing is quite
> >>>>specific, and does not apply to copyright infringement.
> >>>>You may personally think it is morally equivalent to stealing, but it
is
> >>>>quite untrue to say it *is* stealing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Please post the legal definition of stealing.
> >>>
> >>
> >>In which jurisdiction?
> >
> >
> > Whichever one you were referring to when you said the "legal definition
of
> > stealing is quite
> > specific, and does not apply to copyright infringement."
> >
> Sorry, I was being sarky ;-)
> Obviously the defs are quite long, but Wikipedia boils it down to:
>
> 'In the common law, theft is usually defined as the unauthorised taking
> or use of someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive
> the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its
> use.'
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
I notice both theft and copyright infringement are "actus reus" which,
according to your own source is: "the criminal act which, in combination
with the mens rea, produces criminal liability in common law based criminal
law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia, Canada and the
United Kingdom." I also note that in copyright infringement, "mens rea" need
not be proven.
> Consider this as well: if copyright infringement were legally definable
> as theft, why don't the RIAA etc charge their victims with theft,
> instead of threatening to sue them for copyright infringement?
The RIAA does not have the authority to bring criminal charges.
Paul Nixon
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|