[anon25783]

Ah, so of course you yourself, or someone you care about, would never be a guilty person, right? You would never find yourself, say, breaking a law that you didn't know about, or doing something that's technically a criminal act but seemed innocent enough at the time (the classic insider trader's lament), nor would you ever have a close family member who is charged with a serious crime. Or if you did, you would bravely accept the judgement of the court without taking exception.

You know, it would be terrible if I was found guilty of willful copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which carries "A fine of not more than $500,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, for the first offense"[1]. If I had committed such a terrible act as torrenting seven movies, the insult to my conscience would surely move me to accept the felony penalties with civic stoicism - after such twisted malice from myself, the additional moral consequences of pleading "Not Guilty" would be too great to bear.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...

[avalys]

You can't design a justice system around making it easy for you to escape responsibility for complying with laws you disagree with.

I'm not expressing an opinion on whether throwing someone in jail for torrenting movies is the right moral outcome. What I am saying is that a system which officially says "Yes, lying in court is legally permissible as long as you're lying about something related to a bullshit law" is not exactly sustainable.

I think the DMCA is a stupid and unfair law. The mafia probably thinks RICO is a stupid and unfair law. Someone who is a habitual drunk driver (but is convinced they can 'handle their liquor' better than the general public) probably thinks drunk driving laws are stupid and unfair. What of it?