From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,alt.wired,alt.2600 Subject: Re: Indictment of Sysop Date: 14 Apr 1994 15:57:52 -0400 Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Distribution: inet NNTP-Posting-Host: eff.org In article <2ofdle$qjg@Jupiter.mcs.com>, Karl Denninger wrote: >> >>But you'd be wrong. Civil copyright infringement cannot be the predicate >>for a conspiracy charge. And the allegations in the indictment don't >>mention criminal copyright infringement, which includes as an element >>the copying *for profit*. > >I know, Mike, but I would say that they probably . > >All they have to do is get $2,000 worth of transferred software and I would >think that the test would pass. So, you think they just overlooked criminal copyright? Seems unlikely, given the hue and cry about amending the software penalties back in 1992. No, I am certain the problem is that they couldn't be sure of proving the "for profit" element of the crime. >I agree that Wire Fraud is probably better understood and sounds "worse". >I don't know enough about federal wire fraud statutes to know if what he >did really qualifies. IMHO, probably not. Where's the fraud? He didn't misrepresent anything. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (202) 347-5400 |"And walk among long dappled grass, mnemonic@eff.org | And pluck till time and times are done Electronic Frontier | The silver apples of the moon, Foundation | The golden apples of the sun."