RE: [dvd-discuss] Two articals

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeme A Brelin [mailto:jeme@brelin.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:54 PM
> To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Two articals
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > > Aren't they conspiring to criminal action?
> > 
> > No.  Talk is cheap.  You can _talk_ about it all you want.  It
> > only becomes criminal once you _act_ on it.
> 
> Not quite.  It's criminal conspiracy BEFORE the act if you 
> specify time,
> place, and manner of the criminal act.
> 
> So we can say "On Tuesday morning at the Courthouse, let's go do some
> crimes!" and that's not criminal conspiracy.  But if we say 
> "On Tuesday
> morning at the Courthouse, let's bludgeon any judge we see 
> with a giant
> mackeral!" THAT is criminal conspiracy and prosecutable.
> 
> I am not a lawyer, but that's what we were told when we were 
> forming the
> Independent Media Center.

So, they're still in the "talk is cheap" realm because they have
not given any such specifics.  Now if they had said, "we will 
cut off Napster next thursday" then it might be conspiracy.


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!