Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!motcid!mellman
From: mellman@motcid.UUCP (Tom Mellman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Musings on constitutionality - Result of Neidorf charges
Message-ID: <4628@graphite18.UUCP>
Date: 17 Sep 90 15:52:10 GMT
References: <16013@s.ms.uky.edu>
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Lines: 31

In article <16013@s.ms.uky.edu> tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) writes:
>
>"The U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago claimed that Neidorf, a 20-year-old
>political science major at the University of Missouri, had reprinted illegally
>obtained information from BellSouth Corp.'s 911 emergency telephone services,
>and charged him with wire fraud and interstate transportation of stolen
>property."
>
>"The charges against Neidorf were all dropped on July 27, after his attorney
>proved that anyone with a computer could access the BellSouth data."


It seems that this is the wrong way to approach it.

This is all so scary to me.  I understand that Neidorf wanted to
get off any way he could, but it's frightening that the defense
he had to use was only that the material was already in the public
domain.

I mean, at the very basis of this is issue is the definition of
stolen property.  How can you steal something from someone if you
don't deprive him of it?

Of course, at this point people always say that the victim has
been deprived of profits.  But he wasn't deprived of the item
supposedly stolen.  This is an issue of copyright, not theft.
And am I wrong in my understanding that copyright is a civil
offense, not a criminal offense?

-- 
Reply-to: motcid!mellman@uunet.uu.net