No subject

[Terry Hancock]

On Thursday 03 November 2005 04:29 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:56:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> 
> > There is a difference between what is *illegal* and what constitutes
> > a *crime*.
> 
> Why thank you, you've really made my day. That's the funniest thing I've
> heard in months. Please, do tell, which brand of corn flakes was it that
> you got your law degree from?
No, he's absolutely right there. At least in the US legal system. A
civil violation is not a "crime", only a "criminal violation".
We have two major systems of law, "criminal law" and "civil law".
Most of the "crimes" that Microsoft has been accused of are actually
"civil law violations" and are therefore not properly called "crimes".
Generally, infringements on copyrights, contract violations, and
a wide variety of so-called "white collar" offenses are really
civil violations, and therefore not properly called "crimes".
So, for example, illegally downloading a copyrighted movie from
the internet and giving it to your friends is a civil offense,
"copyright infringement" and NOT "crime" of "piracy", despite
enormous propaganda budgets from the movie industry trying to
convince you otherwise.
This has nothing to do with exonerating Microsoft, though. It's
just splitting hairs.  And Microsoft itself has gotten on
the "copyright infringement"="piracy" bandwagon, so if they are
called criminals by the conflation of the two concepts, then
they are merely being hoisted by their own petard, so I can't
feel any sympathy there.
--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks  http://www.anansispaceworks.com