Indeed they are not a lawyer. A lawyer would know that this is not illegal. It violates the rights of the copyright holder, but that’s not a crime.
Now, the commercial use or intent of the software in question isn't analyzed in the OP (or in your comment) and I haven't dug into it. In this particular case it may or may not meet the elements of the five-year federal felony. But your comment is far too quick to dismiss the possibility.
(Additionally, as a sibling comment pointed out, the word "illegal" doesn't always necessarily mean "criminal.")
I know the US is trying (and often getting away with) unilaterally setting rules on the global stage but let's try to not play along.
Let's see:
1. Kim DotCom 2. Julian Assange 3. Edward Snowden 4. Henry Kissinger 5. Meng Wanzhou
The list goes on I imagine, those are just the notable ones from my lifetime.
It's still early to tell but we may have to add Aleksey Pertsev to this list :/
> 3. Edward Snowden
U.S. citizen being hunted for acts committed on US soil so as terrible as prosecuting them is, I don't see how it's relevant here.
Other than that, yes, my point is we should not be normalizing and shrugging this off as "the way things are". Individuals and businesses are doing right in taking this into their risk-calculations but that does not make it lawful or constitutional even when local governments or LE are complicit.
Not everyone are as aware of this as you and I and comments like GP frame this in a deceptive way for those who aren't. If done deliberately and under certain other circumstances I'd even call it propaganda (not saying that's what GP is intending to do but one can both speak truth and have good intentions while still spreading propaganda).
Additionally, the fact that the code in question is hosted on GitHub (U.S.), a site owned by Microsoft (U.S.), and specifically how it came to be in Debian (U.S.) (started by Ian Murdock (U.S.) and assets held by Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (U.S.)) makes the U.S. an appropriate counterexample.
Russia (home of the author of the software in question, Stanislav Seletskiy) would also be an appropriate counterexample. Russia also criminalizes copyright infringement under some circumstances.
Both the U.S. and Russia serve as counterexamples to the idea that an action that "violates the rights of the copyright holder" is therefore "not a crime."
I was neither "deceptive" nor pushing "propaganda." Your anti-U.S. tirade and personal attacks on me are entirely off-topic.
That is indeed useful context and answers my question. My snark in the original still stands as it happens elsewhere on HN regularly. In some cases it may be an assumption on the commenter that anyone English-speaking is American, everything else is an exception and should be stated as such. It's obvious to see how that occurs spontaneously but it's not healthy or inclusive. Much like heteronormativity.
Personal attacks? Tirade? Come on, I already explicitly mentioned I am not implying bad faith on your part. Neither am I saying you are deceptive, just that your original comment had a deceptive framing, intentional or not. Frankly I'm not sure "deceptive" is really the best word here but nothing better really comes up without starting to write paragraphs. But here we are.
I don't have any beef with you or the US per se. I just want some autonomy and human rights for myself and others. Maybe even a fair and equal society. I am a firm believer that language plays a big part in shaping our view of reality, not only vice versa. I appreciate when others call me out in a similar way - we all have our blind spots.
You're talking to Americans on an American website about how bad you think America is, and nobody is threatening to send your relatives to Xinjiang for it, so I feel pretty confident your human rights aren't being violated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
But many other did the same without any consequences so this might be a selective application of the law.
But the case itself seems pretty open and shut.
For anything to be criminal there either has to be intent or the crime should be strict liability tort where intent does not matter.
It is arguable whether copyright infringement is strict liability tort in practice or not - there are arguments on both sides, so context of the particular case or similar cases that can set precedence matters .
So I wouldn’t be quick to just to say even say illegal let alone criminal.
Modern copyright infringement has both civil and criminal components[2]
So yes an action can be both a tort and crime under the same law even.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_copyright_law_in_th...
From dictionary.law.com:
illegal
adj. in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, which may be criminal or merely not in conformity. Thus, an armed robbery is illegal, and so is an access road which is narrower than the county allows, but the violation is not criminal.
unlawful
adj. referring to any action which is in violation of a statute, federal or state constitution, or established legal precedents