Andre Norton in the public domain?

[owly]

No I didn't know, thanks :-)

Originally Posted by peegee

If you don't know, Project Gutenberg has a sci-fi page where they list what 20th century sci-fi is in the PD
Science Fiction Bookshelf

[Apache]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In the UK we have an expression that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". You can't offer as a defence in court the fact that you didn't know that what you were doing was illegal. Does this precept not apply in US law?

Yes it does apply here too. But, it has to get to court first.
Apache

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Apache

Yes it does apply here too. But, it has to get to court first.
Apache

If a Senator breaks the law, are they not prosecuted? Are Senators immune from prosecution?

[poohbear_nc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If a Senator breaks the law, are they not prosecuted? Are Senators immune from prosecution?

An honest answer to this question will move this thread into the P&R Forum!
[Harry - Google for John Edwards trial]

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If a Senator breaks the law, are they not prosecuted? Are Senators immune from prosecution?

The quick and safe answer is no; the *ex*-senator was prosecuted and tried in a court of law. The jury deliberated over a week and acquited on 1 charge and deadlocked on 8. The phrasing of that specific law requires a "knowing" violation so it came down to intent.

The subject's reputation is shot but he kept his license to practice law which is the reason he diddn't accept a plea bargain to avoid the trial; his license is more valuable to him than his reputation.

[HarryT]

Thanks.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The quick and safe answer is no; the *ex*-senator was prosecuted and tried in a court of law. The jury deliberated over a week and acquited on 1 charge and deadlocked on 8. The phrasing of that specific law requires a "knowing" violation so it came down to intent.

The subject's reputation is shot but he kept his license to practice law which is the reason he diddn't accept a plea bargain to avoid the trial; his license is more valuable to him than his reputation.

Sounds like a lawyer to me....

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Sounds like a lawyer to me....

Pretty much: many *do* live down to their reputed professional standards.

Originally Posted by HarryT

In the UK we have an expression that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". You can't offer as a defence in court the fact that you didn't know that what you were doing was illegal.

Ignorance of the law may not affect guilt or innocence, but does it have any influence upon the penalties handed down by judges?

I'm curious because so many laws are a mess, particularly when there are international treaties involved. Just take a look at copyright. Someone could easily download a book from these forums with the reasonable expectation that it is in the public domain in their country only to find themselves prosecuted for copyright infringement, simply because they don't know how the public domain works in their own country (let's face it, copyright law is usually discussed from the American perspective online).

Even if they "knew" the law for their own country, it is quite possible that they would make an error while researching the copyright status because they do not understand the law fully or how copyright is affected by international treaties. In these days you probably aren't even safe buying a public domain work from an online book store, thus trusting the "experts" to make the judgement, simply because online retailers don't put enough effort into researching the origin of their books.

In other words, because of the complexity of copyright laws, it is quite possible that you are committing a crime simply by reading. And it simply doesn't sound right if a judge wouldn't take that into consideration.

[HarryT]

Copyright infringement is not - in most situations - a crime. It's a civil offence and you'd have to be sued by the copyright holder. I think it's extremely unlikely that anyone would sue you for accidentally downloading a book that's not in the public domain in your country.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

phrasing of that specific law requires a "knowing" violation so it came down to intent.

In general, intent means that you intended to do the act rather than that you knew the act was illegal and intended to break the law. People can get convicted of felonies for doing things that the average person wouldn't know were illegal and would probably not shock even the most delicate conscience.

Someone needs to read through the laws and strip most of that out. Instead it's multiplying like a virus.

As for Edwards, I suspect he would not have been charged had his wife not had the cancer. I also suspect that had the National Enquirer not broken the story, the rest of the media would not have cared.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright infringement is not - in most situations - a crime. It's a civil offence and you'd have to be sued by the copyright holder. I think it's extremely unlikely that anyone would sue you for accidentally downloading a book that's not in the public domain in your country.

You haven't been listening to enough Weird Al.

"I'll sue ya. I'll take all your money. I'll sue ya if you even look at me funny."