"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
news:p6d7241m1107p5kde57n2e7j7355rhr0uc@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:23:48 -0700 (PDT),
> someone_else_of_course@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>> ok, not criminal, but actionable (not sure if that's the correct
>> term), my question is towards liability and ownership - does one imply
>> the other?
>
> Off the top of my head I can't think of offences that are committed by
> merely the ownership of anything, as distinct from say their possession,
> sale, carrying them in public etc. There may be some exotic offences,
> such
> as say owning slaves or wild animals, but those would not be things you
> could produce and so fall under your employer's claims.
>
How about extreme .ography? Ownership of these either is (or is about to
become) a criminal act.
|
1494578. Re: Liability of content, by owners
1494579. Re: Liability of content, by owners
1494580. Re: Liability of content, by owners
1494604. Re: Liability of content, by owners
1494611. Re: Liability of content, by owners
1494793. Re: Liability of content, by owners
1494809. Re: Liability of content, by owners
1494887. Re: Liability of content, by owners
1494920. Re: Liability of content, by owners
1494938. Re: Liability of content, by owners
1495743. Re: Liability of content, by owners
|
|
|