2 ms·

That's an interesting point but I would personally disagree with the premise that the behavior in the headline is harmful if carried out universally[0]. Digita

That's an interesting point but I would personally disagree with the premise that the behavior in the headline is harmful if carried out universally[0]. Digital media to some extent, and the public internet to a greater extent, broke copyright. To your point, it makes sense to prevent someone from trying to start a business using a bunch of stolen creative work, but this person's behavior was not to seek profit. Anyway, those first two examples are very good to demonstrate your point (I don't want to get into it because it's off-topic but I don't think the drug dealer example works as well as the other two). I do find myself thinking that punishment is still deserved in those cases for exactly the reason you suggest. [0] Specifically talking about the sharing of data, not how the data was initially acquired to be shared ("hacked" Netflix employee credentials). This person is not being prosecuted for how the data was initially copied, only for continuing to copy it.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
In common law systems, there is often a differentiation between actions that are only crimes if there's a particular harm, and one where that requirement doesn't hold ... the former are "result crimes" and the latter "conduct crimes". e.g. in English law, the offense of "indecent exposure" (i.e. showing your genitals in public) used to require that this cause "obstruction, annoyance or danger" to at least one person - it was a result crime. The law was subsequently changed because I guess they decided it wasn't really necessary to have the prosecution carry the burden of proof on that; so it became a conduct crime.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  This distinction is not something I'd heard of before, so thanks for the explanation. It seems to me that I fundamentally disagree with this idea of a conduct crime. Prosecutors should be expected to prove the harm that was caused by the actions for which a person is having criminal charges pressed against them. (I don't know of anything like this in American law; per my understanding, if you do the thing that's written down as not to do, you did bad.) If it's expected that it will be obvious what the harm is, then it can be expected that proving it (or convincing a judge of it) will be easy. Anyway, maybe I'll be able to come up with a counter example but I'm coming up blank currently.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

In common law systems, there is often a differentiation between actions that are only crimes if there's a particular harm, and one where that requirement doesn't hold ... the former are "result crimes" and the latter "conduct crimes". e.g. in English law, the offense of "indecent exposure" (i.e. showing your genitals in public) used to require that this cause "obstruction, annoyance or danger" to at least one person - it was a result crime. The law was subsequently changed because I guess they decided it wasn't really necessary to have the prosecution carry the burden of proof on that; so it became a conduct crime.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
This distinction is not something I'd heard of before, so thanks for the explanation. It seems to me that I fundamentally disagree with this idea of a conduct crime. Prosecutors should be expected to prove the harm that was caused by the actions for which a person is having criminal charges pressed against them. (I don't know of anything like this in American law; per my understanding, if you do the thing that's written down as not to do, you did bad.) If it's expected that it will be obvious what the harm is, then it can be expected that proving it (or convincing a judge of it) will be easy. Anyway, maybe I'll be able to come up with a counter example but I'm coming up blank currently.