Hi Larry ----- you have, perhaps without realizing it, struck upon one of the essential dichotomies of the criminal law. As far as criminal law is concerned, some things are so essentially "wrong" that they are considered criminal whether or not anyone ever says "don't do this" and, in fact, whether the actor even knew his act was criminal (putting aside, for purposes of this discussion, the insanity defense). These crimes are sometimes referred to as "malum in se" crimes; that is, inherently criminal. This would include, for example, murder, robbery, shoplifting, assault, etc.

Most of the crimes in modern society, however, are of a different nature. The acts are criminal not because they are inherently "bad" in and of themselves, but because society has decided to prohibit them for other reasons. Copyright violations are a classic example of such "malum prohibitum" crimes. The act of making a copy of something is not inherently wrong. It is only a crime if done for a specific reason or with a particular intent. In fact, copying the exact same pages of a book, for example, might or might not be criminal, depending on what is done with the copies. Use them personally (e.g., to make notes on them) and no violation. Give them to someone else so they don't have to buy the book, violation. The same principle also applies to making copies of software.

Because "malum prohibitum" crimes do not have a built-in moral imperative, it is incumbent upon the government to specify EXACTLY what conduct is criminal. And, if the government fails to do so with sufficient specificity, criminal defense lawyers will use the resulting "technicalities" to exonerate their clients. There is nothing wrong with this process; it insures that only those acts which truly violate the law as written will be punished.

A similar consideration applies in contractual situations. If you want to sell something to someone with restrictions on how he can use it, you'd damn well better spell out those restrictions EXACTLY. This is especially true of intellectual property, because it is so unlike other property. Normally, when we "buy" something, we obtain the absolute right to do as we please with it. Most people think, for example, that because they are "buying" the CD on which software is contained, they are therefore "buying" the contents. They don't even realize that all they are "buying" is a license to use the contents in certain ways. Therefore, it is incumbent on the seller to make absolutely clear what restrictions have been placed on the use of the material.

>> Lawyers are having a heyday because consumers sue companies over their own stupidity. "But the instructions didn't say NOT to..." <<

Emphasis on "their own stupidity", Larry. I don't have any problem with this; all it takes to fix the problem, from the sellers point of view, it to SAY IT.

----- jim o\-S