Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.heimat.gr.jp!taurus!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Kevin Gowen Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: Scanlation Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:51:52 -0400 Lines: 56 Message-ID: <2qkcpoFvt0tkU20@uni-berlin.de> References: <73fde4f0.0408130544.52ad72e0@posting.google.com> <10k4kp397dcepaa@corp.supernews.com> <4142D082.FD722C3E@yahoo.co.jp> <4143E5EC.63000AC2@yahoo.co.jp> <10k8j9cqpncclca@news.supernews.com> <4144545B.9DDC06E5@yahoo.co.jp> <10k8n7gen6r8pcc@news.supernews.com> <414467CA.C9046F8A@yahoo.co.jp> <10k8s8k3r31daba@news.supernews.com> <4144755A.65CBC262@yahoo.co.jp> <2qjkg9Fvt0tkU14@uni-berlin.de> <10k9h2cev8lf9c1@news.supernews.com> <2qk7l7Fvt0tkU16@uni-berlin.de> <10k9rqbn5f48bf2@news.supernews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de DghISBkFO/W1NMX+IREL5Qe+3zaaZ6r0pIVDKkbK4rbuvc6ljM User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <10k9rqbn5f48bf2@news.supernews.com> Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:18281 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