From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 11:56:53 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Digital Watermarks for copy protection in recent Billbo
In-Reply-To: <ae1bbff80e0210045f8c@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960724192805.384D-100000@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but I've virtually certain that "receiving stolen
> property" laws involve terms like "knowingly" and/or "conspiracy." That is,
> "scienter."
> 
> While "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is certainly true in many cases,
> the law comprehends the reality that certain actions are not crimes if no
> knowledge of a criminal act was involved. (Sorry if this is not phrased
> more clearly.)
> 
> Thus, the guy who buys a bicycle that later turns out to have been stolen,
> will usually lose the bicycle, but is not knowingly receiving stolen
> property and hence is guilty of no crime. And no DA will charge him; the
> courts and jails are already clogged up enough. Of course, if he _knew_ the
> bicycle was stolen (e.g., he "placed an order" to have one stolen, a market
> which actually exists in some places, usually for cars), then "scienter"
> has been met, and perhaps "conspiracy," and so prosecution is more likely.

     Unless the point is not to prosecute, but to harass.


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com