http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal) For most minor and petty crimes (such as my e

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal) For most minor and petty crimes (such as my examples in another comment; parking violations, drunk driving, etc.), mens rea is unneeded (in the US, at any rate). The question of what degree of mens rea is relevant for intellectual property theft is both open and relevant; simply saying that, for example, it should should require mens rea because larceny (theft) does ignores the fundamental differences between the two. EDIT: Two clarifying points. First, there is legal language describing the mens rea necessary in intellectual property theft; however, there is not a significant body of case law interpreting exactly what it means. Second, the reason that you can't just copy the mens rea of larceny is that intent to commit larceny is the intent to deprive the rightful owner of the object, which is clearly not a factor in intellectual property theft.