andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (03/25/85)
"You don't seem to be getting my point. The point is that in
this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Don't go
accusing people of stealing unless you can prove that they have
done so. I'm not saying that he couldn't have stolen the
software, but I will refuse to make a stand, as some have,
until I know the facts."
Non-sequitur. One can accuse someone without affecting the presumption
of innocence. The first step in the legal system is to accuse, then
build up the required evidence to prove guilt.
In fact, there's really nothing wrong with saying (publicly) "I think
you pirated this software. Please tell me why you need this device
before I make a decision to make you a copy." I did this a few weeks
ago with a person who wanted an Infotater, and got a reply that, in
fact, he was using pirated software.
-=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP]
(orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (03/26/85)
> > "You don't seem to be getting my point. The point is that in > > this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Don't go > > accusing people of stealing unless you can prove that they have > > done so. I'm not saying that he couldn't have stolen the > > software, but I will refuse to make a stand, as some have, > > until I know the facts." > > Non-sequitur. One can accuse someone without affecting the presumption > of innocence. The first step in the legal system is to accuse, then > build up the required evidence to prove guilt. The accepted sequence is to build up the required evidence, then accuse, then cite the evidence in court. Incorrect sequences are often practised, and innocent victims are at an extreme disadvantage when trying to recover from them, but that doesn't make them correct. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
ross@dsd.UUCP (Evan Ross) (03/26/85)
> > In fact, there's really nothing wrong with saying (publicly) "I think > you pirated this software." Granted, I'm no legal brain, but as I recall the definition of libel, there is definitely something wrong with publicly making such a statement. Libel does not depend upon guilt or innocence, but upon whether or not a person's reputation is damaged. -- Evan Ross {ihnpv, decwrl!amd} !fortune!dsd!ross "To oppose something is to maintain it. To oppose vulgarity is inevitably to be vulgar."
freak@ihu1n.UUCP (c e malloy) (03/28/85)
Since I was one of the first people to start this discussion, I feel compelled to ask a question that no one has gotten an answer for yet. The topic seems to be recuring in the discussion, and has even been asked in a round about way, but not bluntly yet. That question is: WHY DID THE PERSON ORIGINALLY WANT A COPY OF THE BOOKLET??????? If you are out there, maybe lost in the net, let us hear from you. Did you pirate the software? Did your dog eat it? Was it not included in the package? Did you borrow the software from a friend who is on a long vacation? In short, What was the reason for your request? From inside the Tesseract of Clancy Malloy