5 ms·

No, he stole it. He went to a website, not under CERNs jurisdiction and downloaded a cracked copy of the software thereby circumventing the license and using th

by sbuk 11y ago

No, he stole it. He went to a website, not under CERNs jurisdiction and downloaded a cracked copy of the software thereby circumventing the license and using the software unlawfully. No pachyderms present anywhere. It really is that simple.

gutnor 11y ago
> It really is that simple. If you want to be pedantic - then no it is not that simple. The student is in license infringement, copyright violation, contract with CERN violation, ... but has not stolen anything. But yes, he need to pay for those "crimes". That's what the 30K fine is for ? Nope the 30K is just an agreed payment between the CERN and the Company for the discovery of his infringement. That money will charged back to the University thanks to another agreement and only then is going to be charged to him. The "theft" will go unpunished in the eye of the law. The student fucked up - that part is simple. Everything else that leads to him having to pay 30K is anything but simple. Considering the context described in the blog it involves a lot of bad faith from the company and the CERN.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Just because the company and CERN say the student has to pay doesn't mean that he/she has to... The student would be well advised to call their lawyer at this juncture.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Software is an anti-rivalrous, non-scarce, non-tangible good. The semantics of "theft" simply do not apply to it.
JupiterMoon 11y ago
Legally stealing includes the concept "taking with the intention to permanently deprive". The concept of stealing revolves around physical goods not intellectual property. What he did is not stealing (and if you attempted to charge him with theft you would lose in court). The crime is copyright violation not theft. Please be accurate when you are being patronising.
- sbuk 11y ago
  By taking the license without paying for it, he has permanently deprived AllSIM from the license revenue, ergo it was stolen. And drop the ad hominem. You are attacking me and the manner that you interpreted my statement, it has no bearing on the discussion.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    You are assuming that there would have license revenue, that is, that there would have been a sale. In this case that's possible; in many cases that's completely false (maybe even in the majority of cases). So the "stolen" word is a strange word for an act which leaves the owner with the goods, and does not cost the owner a sale that they otherwise would have had. What it is, though, is taking the owner's software in violation of the owner's terms. That's immoral (arguably), and definitely illegal. What it isn't, though, is stealing in the historic meaning of the term. (Though that may not be a valid argument, as uses of words change with time and new circumstances...)
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Further to this. Theft has a clear legal meaning. For example in the UK stealing a car is technically difficult to prove since proving intent to permanently deprive is not very easy. This does not stop a law against taking a car without the owners consent which is then punished appropriately.
      - sbuk 11y ago
        Erm, no.
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        Well a few minutes with google and wikipedia will set you straight on this. Actually that your legally wrong insistence that copyright infringement is theft actually damages your copyright maximalist stance in the eyes of both legal precedent and public opinion. NB I don't argue that copyright infringement should be legal -- merely that is is a different class of crime than theft.
tripzilch 11y ago
Only if you know nothing about copyrights and intellectual property laws. First, there was NO theft. Copyright isn't about theft, no matter how the media likes to portray it, what matters is the law. License violation. Not theft. Not stealing. Violating license. Further, > He went to a website, not under CERNs jurisdiction and downloaded a cracked copy of the software Has absolutely no bearing on the license violation. None whatsoever. No theft, no "illegal downloading" (whatever that means), especially in the world's saner jurisdictions where reverse engineering and/or cracked software by itself is NOT illegal. It doesn't matter where he got the copy, because a copyright license has nothing to do with obtaining or possession. So it can't be theft. Copyright license only covers WHAT you can do with a piece of intellectual property. CERN has a site-license. If the student had downloaded the cracked software, from anywhere, but used it only on-site: No problem. Covered under the license. Bonus: no dongle required. > It really is that simple. It's not actually that complicated to stick to the legal facts either.

by sbuk 11y ago

gutnor 11y ago

> It really is that simple. If you want to be pedantic - then no it is not that simple. The student is in license infringement, copyright violation, contract with CERN violation, ... but has not stolen anything. But yes, he need to pay for those "crimes". That's what the 30K fine is for ? Nope the 30K is just an agreed payment between the CERN and the Company for the discovery of his infringement. That money will charged back to the University thanks to another agreement and only then is going to be charged to him. The "theft" will go unpunished in the eye of the law. The student fucked up - that part is simple. Everything else that leads to him having to pay 30K is anything but simple. Considering the context described in the blog it involves a lot of bad faith from the company and the CERN.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
Just because the company and CERN say the student has to pay doesn't mean that he/she has to... The student would be well advised to call their lawyer at this juncture.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Software is an anti-rivalrous, non-scarce, non-tangible good. The semantics of "theft" simply do not apply to it.

JupiterMoon 11y ago

Legally stealing includes the concept "taking with the intention to permanently deprive". The concept of stealing revolves around physical goods not intellectual property. What he did is not stealing (and if you attempted to charge him with theft you would lose in court). The crime is copyright violation not theft. Please be accurate when you are being patronising.

sbuk 11y ago
By taking the license without paying for it, he has permanently deprived AllSIM from the license revenue, ergo it was stolen. And drop the ad hominem. You are attacking me and the manner that you interpreted my statement, it has no bearing on the discussion.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  You are assuming that there would have license revenue, that is, that there would have been a sale. In this case that's possible; in many cases that's completely false (maybe even in the majority of cases). So the "stolen" word is a strange word for an act which leaves the owner with the goods, and does not cost the owner a sale that they otherwise would have had. What it is, though, is taking the owner's software in violation of the owner's terms. That's immoral (arguably), and definitely illegal. What it isn't, though, is stealing in the historic meaning of the term. (Though that may not be a valid argument, as uses of words change with time and new circumstances...)
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Further to this. Theft has a clear legal meaning. For example in the UK stealing a car is technically difficult to prove since proving intent to permanently deprive is not very easy. This does not stop a law against taking a car without the owners consent which is then punished appropriately.
    - sbuk 11y ago
      Erm, no.
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        Well a few minutes with google and wikipedia will set you straight on this. Actually that your legally wrong insistence that copyright infringement is theft actually damages your copyright maximalist stance in the eyes of both legal precedent and public opinion. NB I don't argue that copyright infringement should be legal -- merely that is is a different class of crime than theft.

tripzilch 11y ago

Only if you know nothing about copyrights and intellectual property laws. First, there was NO theft. Copyright isn't about theft, no matter how the media likes to portray it, what matters is the law. License violation. Not theft. Not stealing. Violating license. Further, > He went to a website, not under CERNs jurisdiction and downloaded a cracked copy of the software Has absolutely no bearing on the license violation. None whatsoever. No theft, no "illegal downloading" (whatever that means), especially in the world's saner jurisdictions where reverse engineering and/or cracked software by itself is NOT illegal. It doesn't matter where he got the copy, because a copyright license has nothing to do with obtaining or possession. So it can't be theft. Copyright license only covers WHAT you can do with a piece of intellectual property. CERN has a site-license. If the student had downloaded the cracked software, from anywhere, but used it only on-site: No problem. Covered under the license. Bonus: no dongle required. > It really is that simple. It's not actually that complicated to stick to the legal facts either.