Re: Snivelling Turlettes

["Arkain" <rwking@no.usa.spam.net>]

In the case of defunct Apple II software
Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote in message
news:bVlE5.48$Gb4.3832@dca1-nnrp2.news.digex.net...
>
> "Arkain" <rwking@no.usa.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:39e1d5e3$1@hal.grnco.net...
>
> As for the law codes go, if the holder doesn't press the
> > issue then there's little that the law can do against the thief, short
of
> a
> > slap on the wrist since copyright violation is not a federal offense.
>
> Under some circumstances, a copyright violation *is* a federal criminal
> offense.

I believe that the condition is a threshold commercial value. Since software
not being sold commercially has no commercial value, then it is definitely
below that threshold and as such, under the federal
radar. Such cases will not be prosecuted in a federal court.

> While it is true that the coperation of the victim is often
> indispensible for the state's case, in the criminal portion of a copyright
> case, the criminal "plaintiff" is the state (the Federal Government), not
> the victim.  Criminal case captions often read "State v. Brown" or "US v.
> Williams." The state seeks the indictment, not the victim.

Are there any such "(State/US) vs Smith" cases on the books that are about
copyright violations for commercially non-viable software? If there is, I'd
like to see it. It's make for interesting reading.

> > The point of that somewhat loosely constructed example was that if I
don't
> > press charges, there's nothing more the police can do.
>
> A common misconception.  See my above comments.  "Press charges" is often
> loosely used to refer to a formal accusation by a victim.  If you refuse
to
> accuse, or accuse someone of a crime but then recant, the state may be
> compelled to drop its case.  But the state may also proceed if it has
enough
> evidence apart from the testimony of the victim.

In copyright cases, all such evidence amounts to hearsay without the
ratification of the copyright holder. Cooperation of the holder is a MUST
HAVE in such cases.

>  That means that you
> > have 2 choices left... either wash your hands of the situation or try to
> > stop the thief yourself. You've been choosing the latter. The only
problem
> > is that in doing so, you've violated my rights, the rights of the
> > thief(ironic, isn't it), and a hand full of laws regarding vigilantes.
> >
> > So let me now ask you this... is it ok to break the law to stop someone
> else
> > from breaking the law?
>
> Sometimes. Try openly shoplifting a nice pair of sunglasses and see how
many
> of your civil rights are "violated" by the store, all quite legally ;-))

It's a trip, isn't it! ;-) The only problem with your scenario is that
that's entirely different than a case of some thief stealing from the store,
some individual not related legally to the store alerting the store to the
theft, and upon seeing the inaction from the store, that same someone
proceeding to capture and detain the thief.

What's the difference? The store detaining the thief is the store's legal
right to act against someone that has violated the store's rights. Some
third party acting on behalf of the store without the legal authority to do
so, given either by the store or federal authorities, is merely a vigilante.

I'm really just wondering how QC justifies being a vigilante when he is so
adamantly against law breaking of any kind.

Arkain