Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Insightful? Idiotic is more like it (Score 1) 772

Not under the law they can't. The U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952), on this very issue. The case dealt with bomb casings on an Air Force range rather than a Ming vase by a dumpster, but the principle applies: if there's no mens rea, there's no crime (there might be liability, but not criminal sanction). The court rights that "[s]tate courts of last resort, on whom fall the heaviest burden of interpreting criminal law in this country, have consistently retained the requirement of intent in larceny-type offenses." Id. If you thought the property was abandoned, you didn't intend to steal it.

I apologize for not being more specific, you are in fact correct, if I did not realize that something was stolen property, I can not be accused of stealing. That's why I used an example such as a ming vase, something I am not expecting to find unless it was stolen from someone. (Sortof like when I "got" my 400W car amplifier... I can assume it wasn't stolen, just thrown out, but there it was, sitting in the grass next to a parking lot with torn wiring hanging from it...)

My point being that anyone who gives away copies of mp3's and who receives copies of mp3's knows darned well whether or not they legally have that CD at home, and obviously know whether they are breaking the law. Just because you didn't witness the act of ripping that CD, you know damn well that you don't own that CD. Therefore, you aren't just innocently in possession of stolen property. You knew what you were doing, and did it anyway. (You bad, bad boy!)

Slashdot Top Deals

How many hardware guys does it take to change a light bulb? "Well the diagnostics say it's fine buddy, so it's a software problem."

Working...