[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Intent (not ignorance) makes a difference in some
circumstances, the differing degrees of murder for
example.  I think this would be one such area.

-Richard M. Hartman

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Stratton [mailto:cpt@gryphon.auspice.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:59 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Matt Pavlovich WINS in Cal. Supreme Court
> 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.