Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:

> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't draw a line, I just didn't address my feelings towards 
>>>>>> them. I
>>>>>> would have no problem imposing criminal penalties on knowingly 
>>>>>> watching a fansub.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Since ignorance would not be a defense
>>>
>>>
>>> And to you, the word "knowingly" has no meaning, I take it?
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Knowingly" doesn't do a lot for me since all knowledge or ignorance 
>> is willful.
> 
> 
> I would suggest that Liparota v US, SCOTUS, 1985 471 US. 419, 105 S.Ct. 
> 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434, would provide useful precedent. Liparota had 
> violated food stamp purchase regulations, and had his conviction 
> reversed because the statute included the word "knowingly", and the 
> government had not introduced evidence indicating that Liparota "knew 
> that his acquisition or possession of food stamps was in a manner not 
> authorized by statute or regulations."
> The examples used seems parallel to your example of a videotape 
> including an image of a copyrighted work: "A strict reading of the 
> statute *with no knowledge-of-illegality requirement* would thus render 
> criminal a food stamp recipient who, for example, used stamps to 
> purchase food from a store that, unknown to him, charged higher than 
> normal prices to food stamp program recipients. Such a reading would 
> also render criminal a nonrecipient of food stamps who 'possessed' 
> stamps because he was sent them through the mail due to administrative 
> error, 'altered' them by tearing them up, and 'transferred' them by 
> throwing them away... we are reluctant to adopt such a sweeping 
> interpretation."

If we are going to use your fantasyland of "copyright infringement is 
theft", I see no reason not to say "all knowledge or ignorance is 
willful". Nice WestLaw-ing, though.

P.S. You can omit "SCOTUS" since that is obvious from the reporter 
citations.

- Kevin