4 ms·

That's still just enforcement of intellectual property.

wolfgke 7y ago
> That's still just enforcement of intellectual property. No, in German law, this is a completely different criminal offence.
- partitionman 7y ago
  Ah, I see, so we could abolish IP law by renaming it to Conditionally Shared Secrets and keeping all provisions the same? No, that would be ridiculous. The concept of intellectual property is obviously unaffected by the implementation of the enforcement regime.
  - wolfgke 7y ago
    > Ah, I see, so we could abolish IP law by renaming it to Conditionally Shared Secrets and keeping all provisions the same? I will try to explain it to you again: the purpose of all the criminal offences that are subsumed under "Geheimnisverrat" in German law is to punish leaking confidential information (e.g. trade secrets). For example, a movie that is available on a BluRay disc, is not confidential because you can easily buy it. Thus, copying a BluRay disc etc. is does not belong under the umbrella term "Geheimnisverrat" because the content of the BluRay disc is not confidential data, but copyrighted. Thus, in German law, Urheberrechtsverletzung (roughly and often translated with "copyright violation", though not identical) and Geheimnisverrat (secret betrayal) are very different criminal acts.
    - partitionman 7y ago
      My point is that it's still intellectual property even if it isn't copyright, because it says that you can hold on to secrets and that secrets are protected like property. Go back to the beginning of the thread: > "Intellectual property" is fundamentally different from classical property because information is not an exclusive good. If I hold an apple, you cannot hold the same apple, but we can both hold a digital copy with the same information. The same thing applies to these secrets. It's just a subtype of intellectual property. In the US, too, trade secrets and copyright violation are handled under different sections of the law. They are different acts, just like in Germany (hence the different name - copyright vs. trade secret). But they're both intellectual property and the arguments against work against both.
- deadmetheny 7y ago
  Changing the legal framework around intellectual property doesn't stop it from being intellectual property.
  - wolfgke 7y ago
    > Changing the legal framework around intellectual property doesn't stop it from being intellectual property. As I wrote under https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20811544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20811544 "Geheimnisverrat" applies to leaking confidential data (e.g. trade secrets, but not copyrighted works that are publicly available).
    - deadmetheny 7y ago
      Intellectual property does not mean 'copyright', it broadly refers to any sort of creation that isn't physical in nature. Trade secrets are legally enforced differently than copyright in the United States as well, but they are both forms of intellectual property.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

> That's still just enforcement of intellectual property. No, in German law, this is a completely different criminal offence.

partitionman 7y ago
Ah, I see, so we could abolish IP law by renaming it to Conditionally Shared Secrets and keeping all provisions the same? No, that would be ridiculous. The concept of intellectual property is obviously unaffected by the implementation of the enforcement regime.
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > Ah, I see, so we could abolish IP law by renaming it to Conditionally Shared Secrets and keeping all provisions the same? I will try to explain it to you again: the purpose of all the criminal offences that are subsumed under "Geheimnisverrat" in German law is to punish leaking confidential information (e.g. trade secrets). For example, a movie that is available on a BluRay disc, is not confidential because you can easily buy it. Thus, copying a BluRay disc etc. is does not belong under the umbrella term "Geheimnisverrat" because the content of the BluRay disc is not confidential data, but copyrighted. Thus, in German law, Urheberrechtsverletzung (roughly and often translated with "copyright violation", though not identical) and Geheimnisverrat (secret betrayal) are very different criminal acts.
  - partitionman 7y ago
    My point is that it's still intellectual property even if it isn't copyright, because it says that you can hold on to secrets and that secrets are protected like property. Go back to the beginning of the thread: > "Intellectual property" is fundamentally different from classical property because information is not an exclusive good. If I hold an apple, you cannot hold the same apple, but we can both hold a digital copy with the same information. The same thing applies to these secrets. It's just a subtype of intellectual property. In the US, too, trade secrets and copyright violation are handled under different sections of the law. They are different acts, just like in Germany (hence the different name - copyright vs. trade secret). But they're both intellectual property and the arguments against work against both.
deadmetheny 7y ago
Changing the legal framework around intellectual property doesn't stop it from being intellectual property.
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > Changing the legal framework around intellectual property doesn't stop it from being intellectual property. As I wrote under https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20811544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20811544 "Geheimnisverrat" applies to leaking confidential data (e.g. trade secrets, but not copyrighted works that are publicly available).
  - deadmetheny 7y ago
    Intellectual property does not mean 'copyright', it broadly refers to any sort of creation that isn't physical in nature. Trade secrets are legally enforced differently than copyright in the United States as well, but they are both forms of intellectual property.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]