Re: [LINK] We’r e all copyright criminals now

[Adam Todd]

At 07:53 AM 21/11/2006, Saliya Wimalaratne wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 02:58:09AM +1100, Adam Todd wrote:
> > At 11:02 PM 20/11/2006, Kim Holburn wrote:
> > >I know we've talked about this on link but reading it brought up some
> > >questions in my mind (see bottom posting below)
> > >
> > >http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/20061108-Were-all-copyright-criminals-
> > >now.html
> > >
> > It says if you have the equipment with the INTENT to infringe
> > copyright.  The Girl didn't intend to infringe copyright.  She's be quite
> > well protected by the following points:
>
>This is actually the entire point of the linked article - the linked article
>is about changes to the law, and states that the changes remove the need for
>intent.

No it doesn't.  That's just the bull***t that people are spreading.

I'm yet to see a clause in the law that says "No intent by the person is 
required to commit a breach of this act"

It says specifically you must own the device with the INTENT to breach 
copyright.  It's so weak it's not funny.

Yet what people are stupidly doing is drawing attention to the most basic 
and fundamental of defences.  INTENT to BREACH, not just possession.

You can own a gun and be in possession of it, but that doesn't make you a 
murderer.  As Ms Brown has finally shown.