Author: John Smith
Date: 12:42:02 09/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2002 at 14:59:50, Shep wrote: >On September 29, 2002 at 04:55:40, John Smith wrote: > >>And according to our laws, with respect to intellectual property, you do not >>require a showing of intent to prove criminal liability. In other words, just >>being in possesion of the pirated software puts you in a world of hurt. > >Just for the record: >I'm more specialized in German law than American, but I don't think the law is >quite as broad as you put it here - if e.g. you download software in good faith >(e.g. labeled as "Freeware"), no-one can sue you for copyright infringement if >it turns out this was not the case. >Just imagine if it were the case that Ruffian were a cleverly disguised clone of >[put commercial program here], you wouldn't allude that anyone here would be >going to jail for downloading it, right? In the US, having pirated software on your computer is prima facie evidence of copyright infringment. And under our copyright laws, having software which you did not pay for is probative of an intent to steal. Harsh, but that's how it is. > >>How do you think prosecutors here in the USA and overseas get to convict >>pedophiles ? The fact that they have images of children in sexually explicit >>conduct in their computers, notwithstanding the defense of ignorance, is >>evidence of criminal conduct. > >In that case it would be rather hard to plead ignorance. :) Exactly !! That's why under US penal law, any person having in their possession images of minor children in sexually explicit conduct, may not argue that they did not know the images were in their drive; mistake of fact is not available to them as a defense. Again, its harsh but the rationale behind it is to eliminate the market for child pornography by targeting the users as well as the producers of child pornography. > >>Terry admitted that he had pirated software. That admission, in and of itself, >>would be enough to convict him. > >No, because if his confession is the only proof against him, he is at any time >free to revoke it. > >>There is no such thing as innocent theft. If you have any software in your >>computer that is not distributed as freeware, and you have not paid for it, you >>are a thief. End of story. > >In Germany, we're currently having heated discussion about the terms "pirating" >and "theft". >What most knowledgable people tell you is that "pirating" would mean >"distributing illegal copies for profit" and that "theft" cannot be applied to >software, only "copyright infringement" and "licence violation" can. > >Just my 2 cents, ain't going to comment on the specific issue of Terry's case >here. > >--- >Shep
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.