Re: Digital Watermarks for copy protection in recent Billbo
At 12:54 PM 7/24/96, Alex F wrote:
Yes, but concievably if (whoever would be incharge, FBI?) *could*, under law do this, even if they are wrong. It is a lot harder to prove that they intentionally harrassed *you* than it is for them to say that they were following leads and show evidence. Yes, this may
To go to trial, an indictment would be needed. How likely is this?
The likelyness is irrelevant to the point. Possibility is relevant. Probability is not.
"Likeliness" is _always_ relevent when discussing law. I am not a lawyer, but I've virtually certain that "receiving stolen property" laws involve terms like "knowingly" and/or "conspiracy." That is, "scienter." While "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is certainly true in many cases, the law comprehends the reality that certain actions are not crimes if no knowledge of a criminal act was involved. (Sorry if this is not phrased more clearly.) Thus, the guy who buys a bicycle that later turns out to have been stolen, will usually lose the bicycle, but is not knowingly receiving stolen property and hence is guilty of no crime. And no DA will charge him; the courts and jails are already clogged up enough. Of course, if he _knew_ the bicycle was stolen (e.g., he "placed an order" to have one stolen, a market which actually exists in some places, usually for cars), then "scienter" has been met, and perhaps "conspiracy," and so prosecution is more likely. I maintain that this "wiggle factor" in the law is not something to get worried about ("But they _could_ arrest me for buying a book stolen 10 years ago! We've got to do something!) and is, in fact, essential in any justice system. There just is no "automated" or "formal" system, and probably/hopefully never will be. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but I've virtually certain that "receiving stolen property" laws involve terms like "knowingly" and/or "conspiracy." That is, "scienter."
While "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is certainly true in many cases, the law comprehends the reality that certain actions are not crimes if no knowledge of a criminal act was involved. (Sorry if this is not phrased more clearly.)
Thus, the guy who buys a bicycle that later turns out to have been stolen, will usually lose the bicycle, but is not knowingly receiving stolen property and hence is guilty of no crime. And no DA will charge him; the courts and jails are already clogged up enough. Of course, if he _knew_ the bicycle was stolen (e.g., he "placed an order" to have one stolen, a market which actually exists in some places, usually for cars), then "scienter" has been met, and perhaps "conspiracy," and so prosecution is more likely.
Unless the point is not to prosecute, but to harass. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
participants (2)
-
snow -
tcmay＠got.net