John Howell wrote:
At 1:41 PM -0400 7/11/10, Blake Richardson wrote:
From: John Howell <[email protected]>
If there IS a single problem, it's obviously the one we've all been
aware of all the time: the progress of technology has made new
crimes not only possible but really, really EASY!
Copyright infringement is generally not a crime. There are criminal
penalties in the Copyright Statute, but they only apply in instances
where
someone is clearly making a business of infringing-- the folks who steal
digital prints from studios, mass-press DVDs of films and sell them, for
example.
So it is not a crime except when it is? I have a little bit of a
problem tracking with that reasoning. But I suspect that you're taking
a very narrow and limited definition of "crime" into account, whereas
mine was rather broader as meaning "anything that is against the law."
What is yours? By your reasoning, OJ was not convicted of a "crime"--in
fact he was acquitted of it. So what was it that he was subsequently
convicted of? One thing I DO know is that it wasn't copyright
infringement! That the penalty was financial and not jail time is
irrelevant.
O.J. was never convicted of anything -- he simply lost a
lawsuit as defendant and was forced to pay the penalty that
the court felt was proper. No criminal record comes from
losing lawsuits, at least that I've ever heard of.
[snip]
--
David H. Bailey
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
