On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Bradley Hook [email protected] wrote:
*IF* it were a violation of law, it would not matter if the offense were civil or criminal, it would still be "illegal." Due process is required of the government in both cases.
LOL, you are even more of a stickler than I. I was referring to his statement that "whether civil or criminal is irrelevant". My rebuttal is that it is VERY relevant, as the obligations of government and the means to seek a resolution are dramatically different. The government does not seek out and prosecute violations of civil laws, unless the injured party is the government itself or the entire populace.
Furthermore, society holds a great distinction between "criminal" and "civil". We call violators of criminal laws "criminals" but don't seem to have a commonly used world for people who violate the civil code. Infractioners? ;-)
As you point out, the legality of copyright actions is based on permission of the author, and since the author has given implied permission, the act becomes legal. If the author had not given permission, but also had not filed charges, the act would still be "illegal" because it violates law (by infringing on copyright).
Yes sir, but my point is that his overuse of the term is a bit sensational. This goes with my general argument that Luke does not know how to speak without the abuse of hyperbole.
Jeffrey.