Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 6374513" data-attributes="member: 19675">...under the definition of of 18 U.S.C. 2314, the statute under which Dowling was tried and convicted, not in the general sense of the legal definition supplied above.  And here's the problem with trying to say that the Court was generally saying CI is not theft.The Court, among other things, pointed out that the Feds were using 2314 in order to get access to the threat of the 10 years imprisonment portion of that statute, when there was already another explicit section of the law dealing with Dowling's behavior, namely 17 U.S.C. 506...which provided only a max 5 year imprisonment penalty.The Court saw the Feds were gaming the system, didn't care for it, and appropriately swatted them down.IOW, one of the things Dowing stands for is not so much "CI is not theft", but rather that the Feds better use the correct statutes to try CI cases- no game playing.This matters: definitions vary from code to code.  If you look at the term "Vehicle" as it is used in US law, you're going to find SEVERAL definitions, and sometimes, certain things get defined as a vehicle in own law that does not include things defined in other laws.  If you only looked at one law, you might have a very different view of what the law thought a vehicle was than someone looking at another section of code.</blockquote>