Hacker News
points by piltdownman 2 days ago | 0 comments
In reference to the laws handling stolen goods; the law holds you accountable if a reasonable person in your exact situation would have suspected the item was stolen.

For example, if the item was derived from a repository of stolen goods that was already illegal in the US on the basis of it being a repository of stolen goods.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/09/pirate-library-m...

[–] 15155 2 days ago
Which is why GP should never have attempted the "theft" analogy. No part of what Aaron Swartz did was theft - so every single statute you can cite regarding knowingly receiving stolen property is irrelevant.
[–] lossolo 2 days ago
The act of theft in my analogy is irrelevant, you can pick theft or any other analogy you like. What matters is that, under the law, there was another unlawful act in that process, one that falls under a different section and constitutes a different crime. That's what makes these cases different. You can agree or disagree with that, but that's how the law works and how it's interpreted.
[–] 15155 2 days ago
Receiving stolen property is a specific, enumerated crime - which statute are you alleging that Anthropic knowingly and intentionally violated?