video cards

[Jeffrey Watts]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Bradley Hook <bhook at kssb.net> 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.

-- 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine