4 ms·

No, that's not how it works. Al Lowe is indeed violating copyright by selling these. You can't just go selling your ex-employers source code because it "happene

No, that's not how it works. Al Lowe is indeed violating copyright by selling these. You can't just go selling your ex-employers source code because it "happened to be on your laptop". It's absolutely a copyright violation. The reason you can sell physical goods is because of the first sale doctrine and alike. Al Lowe never bought this source code on physical media; rather he created it during his employment. Thus he is not permitted to sell it.

ballenf 8y ago
All true. It's a unique case here in that by the time the copyright period expires, the media will probably be unreadable. The idea of copyright is to reward creativity for a limited time and then give that work to the public. If the work can't ever fall into public hands then I'd argue it shouldn't get copyright protection. Obviously that's a public policy debate, not a justification for breaking the law but it makes me hesitant to judge someone who takes a risk for the benefit of us all.
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
  Yeah, I ought to point out that I agree with everything you've written. I'm far from a proponent of how wide reaching copyright laws are these days. Thanks, Disney! Nonetheless, despite not being a lawyer, and having never taken a single legal class during my education; I still find myself regularly correcting other professionals misunderstanding of copyright laws. It would be so easy for someone to seriously ruin their life by not understanding this stuff. Although, that's largely a flaw of our overly complicated legal system, and far from being exclusively the individuals fault.
jt2190 8y ago
A quibble: The source code belongs to Al Lowe’s ex-employer only if he had a work for hire agreement in place with them. Copyright is implicit and, unless otherwise agreed to, belongs to the creator by default. Anything I write (including code) I have the right to copy unless I transfer that right. (This, by the way, is why your employer requires that you sign those “we own everything you create while you work for us” documents.) Edit: But this case seems to hinge on Al selling the physical media, rather than the IP rights. More like selling a used book.
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
  This depends on your jurisdiction, and in many places precedence has been set by case law. But generally, unfortunately, no. If you create something "on the clock" or using your employer's hardware (even in your free time), then the copyright is typically implicitly transferred to your employer. EDIT: This is actually covered in season 1 of Silicon Valley... Yeah, legit reference, I know ;)
  - wglb 8y ago
    This is true only if explicitly called out in documents you sign when you join the company, or sign a consulting contract. There needs to be language that calls this out. Mind you, pretty much every US company has that as part of their HR policy or contract agreement.
    - Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
      Sorry, that's not the case. The relevant laws governing this are called "work for hire". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire Other countries don't necessarily have it spelled out so clearly, but instead leave it to case law. However, it's mostly the same around the globe. The contracts are so your employer owns inventions created outside of work hours, not using employer equipment. This part of your employment agreement is actually frequently contested and deemed unenforceable unless the work is in the same area of expertise as your full-time employment i.e. using knowledge from your job. But it comes down to individual cases. EDIT: It's covered on the Wikipedia page I've linked. However, just to clarify, the act of being employed is automatically considered work for hire by the legislation. If you're not an employee, but rather a contractor, then you may explicitly form a work for hire agreement in writing as part of the contract.
      - wglb 8y ago
        I stand corrected.
- djmips 8y ago

ballenf 8y ago

All true. It's a unique case here in that by the time the copyright period expires, the media will probably be unreadable. The idea of copyright is to reward creativity for a limited time and then give that work to the public. If the work can't ever fall into public hands then I'd argue it shouldn't get copyright protection. Obviously that's a public policy debate, not a justification for breaking the law but it makes me hesitant to judge someone who takes a risk for the benefit of us all.

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
Yeah, I ought to point out that I agree with everything you've written. I'm far from a proponent of how wide reaching copyright laws are these days. Thanks, Disney! Nonetheless, despite not being a lawyer, and having never taken a single legal class during my education; I still find myself regularly correcting other professionals misunderstanding of copyright laws. It would be so easy for someone to seriously ruin their life by not understanding this stuff. Although, that's largely a flaw of our overly complicated legal system, and far from being exclusively the individuals fault.

jt2190 8y ago

A quibble: The source code belongs to Al Lowe’s ex-employer only if he had a work for hire agreement in place with them. Copyright is implicit and, unless otherwise agreed to, belongs to the creator by default. Anything I write (including code) I have the right to copy unless I transfer that right. (This, by the way, is why your employer requires that you sign those “we own everything you create while you work for us” documents.) Edit: But this case seems to hinge on Al selling the physical media, rather than the IP rights. More like selling a used book.

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
This depends on your jurisdiction, and in many places precedence has been set by case law. But generally, unfortunately, no. If you create something "on the clock" or using your employer's hardware (even in your free time), then the copyright is typically implicitly transferred to your employer. EDIT: This is actually covered in season 1 of Silicon Valley... Yeah, legit reference, I know ;)
- wglb 8y ago
  This is true only if explicitly called out in documents you sign when you join the company, or sign a consulting contract. There needs to be language that calls this out. Mind you, pretty much every US company has that as part of their HR policy or contract agreement.
  - Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
    Sorry, that's not the case. The relevant laws governing this are called "work for hire". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire Other countries don't necessarily have it spelled out so clearly, but instead leave it to case law. However, it's mostly the same around the globe. The contracts are so your employer owns inventions created outside of work hours, not using employer equipment. This part of your employment agreement is actually frequently contested and deemed unenforceable unless the work is in the same area of expertise as your full-time employment i.e. using knowledge from your job. But it comes down to individual cases. EDIT: It's covered on the Wikipedia page I've linked. However, just to clarify, the act of being employed is automatically considered work for hire by the legislation. If you're not an employee, but rather a contractor, then you may explicitly form a work for hire agreement in writing as part of the contract.
    - wglb 8y ago
      I stand corrected.
djmips 8y ago