[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 10/25/07, Julian Hall <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If it's not a crime then why are there laws preventing it? You don't > need laws to tell people not to do something if it is legal to do so. > The answer would seem self evident. OK I assumed you understood this and obviously that was a mistake so I'll start from the basics. See, there are two kinds of law - civil and criminal (well, and equity but we can ignore that for now). Criminal law deals with things like theft, murder, etc, these kinds of things are called "crimes". Civil law deals with things like breach of contract, negligence, trespass, etc, these kinds of things are called "torts". Sometimes a single act might be both a tort and a crime: for example "criminal negligence" (a crime) by it's nature must also be ordinary "negligence" (a tort). Most negligence though is simply that and not criminal negligence. Sometimes whether something is a crime or a tort can depend on lots of different factors like someones state of mind at the time. You can be sued for compensation if you commit a tort, you can be prosecuted and punished if you commit a crime. You cannot be prosecuted and punished for a tort. Signs saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted" are therefore wrong (deliberate bluff) they should say "Trespassers will be sued". Copyright infringement is a tort except in very specific circumstances where it becomes criminal copyright infringement - those very specific circumstances are a million miles away from using a downloaded copy of Windows because the one you bought stopped working. There is no law to prevent you from committing a tort, that's something you're allowed to do the law only says that the injured party can sue you if they want to. You're allowed to commit (civil) copyright infringement, THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T the law merely says injured party can sue for compensation. > The law recognises the concept of IP. Your decision not to is up to you. You're almost getting close to being right here but no biscuit. The phrase is being used in courts recently and there is a danger that it might become accepted. The legal concept of "property" is very complicated and a sufficiently woolly minded judge might accept copyright as being property for legal purposes. Fortunately we still have some sharp minds amongst the law lords and we can only hope they'd reverse any such stupidity. > > It's copyright infringement. > > > Also depriving them of income (as I have already stated) as they have > not been paid for the license to use the software. If they feel they've been deprived of income let them sue for compensation. In this specific case however - having already been paid for a licence . . . Regards, Trewornan -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html