RE: [dvd-discuss] Matt Pavlovich WINS in Cal. Supreme Court

[Joshua Stratton <cpt(at)gryphon.auspice.net>]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Richard Hartman wrote:

> If he assumed the code was illegal, then I would hold 
> him liable because he intentionally aided an act that 
> he, himself, thought was not legal.  
>  
> If he assumed that the code was legal (due to it's reverse 
> engineered origin) then I would not hold him liable.
>  
> Unfortunately it sounds like he has already stated that
> he thought the code was "probably illegal"...

Why? Would you convict someone for illegal possession of sugar, if they 
thought it was illegal? Doing legal things, no matter what you might think 
of them, is still legal. To hold otherwise is just silly.

And in the converse, you would overturn the old 'ignorance of the law is 
no excuse' standard, by letting people escape the law by not knowing about 
it.

While we can look at what someone subjectively thought about something 
(e.g. a man jumped towards me, and I thought he was going to kill me, so I 
shot him), considering what they subjectively thought the law was is a 
different matter entirely.