Not under the law they can't. The U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952), on this very issue. The case dealt with bomb casings on an Air Force range rather than a Ming vase by a dumpster, but the principle applies: if there's no mens rea, there's no crime (there might be liability, but not criminal sanction). The court rights that "[s]tate courts of last resort, on whom fall the heaviest burden of interpreting criminal law in this country, have consistently retained the requirement of intent in larceny-type offenses." Id. If you thought the property was abandoned, you didn't intend to steal it.
I apologize for not being more specific, you are in fact correct, if I did not realize that something was stolen property, I can not be accused of stealing. That's why I used an example such as a ming vase, something I am not expecting to find unless it was stolen from someone. (Sortof like when I "got" my 400W car amplifier... I can assume it wasn't stolen, just thrown out, but there it was, sitting in the grass next to a parking lot with torn wiring hanging from it...)
My point being that anyone who gives away copies of mp3's and who receives copies of mp3's knows darned well whether or not they legally have that CD at home, and obviously know whether they are breaking the law. Just because you didn't witness the act of ripping that CD, you know damn well that you don't own that CD. Therefore, you aren't just innocently in possession of stolen property. You knew what you were doing, and did it anyway. (You bad, bad boy!)
No, creating the MP3 is illegal. Trading it is an issue after the fact.
Hate to break it to people, but that's just not true. Due to some "unfortunate incidents" my freshman year of college, I learned a few things. One of those things is that having stolen property is equivalent to stealing.
It doesn't sound like it makes much sense, but it's true. Let's say I'm walking down the street, and see a Ming Vase next to a dumpster. It's late, no one is around, and I pick that sucker up and take it home. In many states, the police can arrest (and prosecute!) me for theft. I was not involved in the act of stealing, but I am in possession of stolen property, and that's close enough.
The same goes for MP3's. In my mind, it's no more illegal to copy a CD (for private use only!) then it is to photocopy a page out of a book that you are using for a report, or to make a backup copy of an old picee of software. (Remember when everything was on beat up floppies that had a penchance for dying every few months?) It is the act of giving them to others that is illegal, as well (see lesson above) as receiving copies from others.
A lot of people posting today are arguing morals, not law. Some of us keep pointing out that Metallica has a legal right to do exactly what they are doing. Many people appear to be arguing the point that Metallica, as an artist, has a moral obligation to allow users to copy their music. There's a difference. If you are arguing that you have a "right" to copy mp3's, make sure you point out that you really mean that you feel that you have a moral right to copy said songs.
Some bands are kind enough to give listeners the privilege to copy and distribute their music. This is a privilege, not to be confused with a right.
Slashdot Mirror
I apologize for not being more specific, you are in fact correct, if I did not realize that something was stolen property, I can not be accused of stealing. That's why I used an example such as a ming vase, something I am not expecting to find unless it was stolen from someone. (Sortof like when I "got" my 400W car amplifier... I can assume it wasn't stolen, just thrown out, but there it was, sitting in the grass next to a parking lot with torn wiring hanging from it...)
My point being that anyone who gives away copies of mp3's and who receives copies of mp3's knows darned well whether or not they legally have that CD at home, and obviously know whether they are breaking the law. Just because you didn't witness the act of ripping that CD, you know damn well that you don't own that CD. Therefore, you aren't just innocently in possession of stolen property. You knew what you were doing, and did it anyway. (You bad, bad boy!)
Hate to break it to people, but that's just not true. Due to some "unfortunate incidents" my freshman year of college, I learned a few things. One of those things is that having stolen property is equivalent to stealing.
It doesn't sound like it makes much sense, but it's true. Let's say I'm walking down the street, and see a Ming Vase next to a dumpster. It's late, no one is around, and I pick that sucker up and take it home. In many states, the police can arrest (and prosecute!) me for theft. I was not involved in the act of stealing, but I am in possession of stolen property, and that's close enough.
The same goes for MP3's. In my mind, it's no more illegal to copy a CD (for private use only!) then it is to photocopy a page out of a book that you are using for a report, or to make a backup copy of an old picee of software. (Remember when everything was on beat up floppies that had a penchance for dying every few months?) It is the act of giving them to others that is illegal, as well (see lesson above) as receiving copies from others.
A lot of people posting today are arguing morals, not law. Some of us keep pointing out that Metallica has a legal right to do exactly what they are doing. Many people appear to be arguing the point that Metallica, as an artist, has a moral obligation to allow users to copy their music. There's a difference. If you are arguing that you have a "right" to copy mp3's, make sure you point out that you really mean that you feel that you have a moral right to copy said songs.
Some bands are kind enough to give listeners the privilege to copy and distribute their music. This is a privilege, not to be confused with a right.