4 ms·

Yes it is! It is illegal in the Netherlands to download pirated software! It's only for music & movies where this doesn't count! See e.g. http://www.iusmentis.

by roel_v 16y ago

Yes it is! It is illegal in the Netherlands to download pirated software! It's only for music & movies where this doesn't count! See e.g. http://www.iusmentis.com/maatschappij/juridisch/magdatopinternet/#Softwaredownloaden http://www.iusmentis.com/maatschappij/juridisch/magdatopinte... , whose author is to put it mildly not known for being pro strong IE laws.

jacquesm 16y ago
This is not 'pirated software', it's leaked source code. That makes distribution copyright infringement and downloading in good faith legal. If the source code is distributed then the user would have to download it in order to be able to see the copyright statement. In this case the title of the software will probably be reason enough to make it hard for you to argue that but technically you could claim you thought this was a source distribution and only after you downloaded it you found out that it was copyrighted and not meant for release. If you keep the source code after downloading and finding out that it was copyrighted and not meant for release the situation becomes gray, after all nobody actually knows you've still got a copy, it might be that you deleted it upon finding out that it was copyrighted stuff. It will be pretty hard to prove that you still have a copy if you yourself do not make it available and if you defend yourself by saying you acted in good faith and destroyed your copy immediately after download and inspection. The act of downloading is not what matters here, what matters is what you do after downloading. I am not aware of any Dutch citizen that has been charged with downloading leaked source code, let alone a conviction. Source code has been leaked before and typically if there are steps taken it is against distributors, never against those that downloaded. Downloading binaries is a different story, there you are clearly in violation. If it wouldn't be like that how would you ever verify that it is legal for you to download any software at all (for instance an open source distro), after all typically you are not shown the license agreement prior to download but upon installation (or, in many cases after that).
- ComputerGuru 16y ago
  Crappy excuse, because it applies to binary software too. I find a file called "Microsoft Office" on a torrent site, I don't know the license until I download it. If you're going to argue "but you can Google it" then (a) the same applies to source code, and (b) put some abandoned but stil payware & under copyright title instead of "Microsoft Office" and the argument will hold (Google won't help).
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Sure. So I label it gcc.torrent and send you the link, you download it, find out that it's microsoft office after all, boom you go to jail right?
    - ComputerGuru 16y ago
      Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. Only saying that your example is not actually applicable, because it's nothing to do with having seen the EULA. It's all about intent.
- roel_v 16y ago
  This does not make sense in any legal sense, I mean not make sense like someone saying "I was programming html yesterday by uploadeding some ram chips into my programming software". Works are by default copyrighted, it doesn't matter if the user has to download the copyright statement or read it or whatever - copyright is a ius sui generis, it has nothing to do with contract law. Furthermore downloading is distributing, see paragraph 5 of the Auteurswet; and no in this context it does not fall under the exceptions of art 13a. Then, there is no "good faith" exception. This is completely irrelevant. The "thuiskopie" (home copy for non-Dutch speakers following along) is allowed explicitly through articles 16b and c of the Auteurswet ("Authors Law", Dutch copyright law). However there is an exception for software in art 45n that explicitly says that artt 16b and c are not applicable to works as defined in 10, 1st paragraph under 12. And when we look at that article, it defines software as "computerprogramma’s en het voorbereidend materiaal", meaning "computer programs and their preparation material". One could argue that "computer programs" already comprises source code but we don't have to - they are explictly defined as being treated the same as "software", however one may want to define that in itself (it is probably in the parliamentary history but I don't at the moment have access to Kluwer Online (the Dutch equivalent of Lexis Nexis) to check. The rest makes equally little sense - no, it doesn't "become grey" if you decide not to delete it, all of that is completely irrelevant. It is the downloading that matters! This is the only thing the Auteurswet sees to, it says nothing of what you do with it afterward! (also, I'm using many exclamation marks in this post! Sorry about that!) As for the last sentence, again reading the licence is irrelevant. What is relevant is the intent of the author. How that intent is communicated doesn't matter; in most cases it will be done through putting the link to the software somewhere and putting 'hey download my software here' or so next to it.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    "hey download my software here": http://www.opensc.ws/attachments/c-c/5053d1296301011-kaspersky-8-source-code-leak-torrent-kav8_src.zip http://www.opensc.ws/attachments/c-c/5053d1296301011-kaspers...
    - noarchy 16y ago
      "504 Gateway Time-out" Edit: It's a popular link right now, understandably. Sometimes it's working, sometimes it isn't.
- tzs 16y ago
  > If the source code is distributed then the user would have to download it in order to be able to see the copyright statement. In this case the title of the software will probably be reason enough to make it hard for you to argue that but technically you could claim you thought this was a source distribution and only after you downloaded it you found out that it was copyrighted and not meant for release. The Netherlands has been a signatory of the Berne Convention since 1912. Under Berne, copyright must be automatic, so saying you had to download it to check if it was copyrighted is probably not going to get you very far.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    The key bit was 'and not meant for release'. Of course it is copyrighted, it is copyrighted upon creation. So is every open source package that is not placed in the public domain. The distribution of copyrighted software per-se is not illegal. Distributing software that you have no license to redistribute is illegal.
dchest 16y ago
Click here: http://pastie.org/1509163 http://pastie.org/1509163 This is a source code file from my program, for which all rights belong to me. It has been obtained and put there by my wife without my permission. By opening this link you made an illegal copy of it. You'll soon hear from my lawyers.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Exactly. If it were that easy to get people to do something illegal then the jails would overflow. The improved version: <img width=2 height=2 src='http://pastie.org/1509163&#62 http://pastie.org/1509163>

by roel_v 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

This is not 'pirated software', it's leaked source code. That makes distribution copyright infringement and downloading in good faith legal. If the source code is distributed then the user would have to download it in order to be able to see the copyright statement. In this case the title of the software will probably be reason enough to make it hard for you to argue that but technically you could claim you thought this was a source distribution and only after you downloaded it you found out that it was copyrighted and not meant for release. If you keep the source code after downloading and finding out that it was copyrighted and not meant for release the situation becomes gray, after all nobody actually knows you've still got a copy, it might be that you deleted it upon finding out that it was copyrighted stuff. It will be pretty hard to prove that you still have a copy if you yourself do not make it available and if you defend yourself by saying you acted in good faith and destroyed your copy immediately after download and inspection. The act of downloading is not what matters here, what matters is what you do after downloading. I am not aware of any Dutch citizen that has been charged with downloading leaked source code, let alone a conviction. Source code has been leaked before and typically if there are steps taken it is against distributors, never against those that downloaded. Downloading binaries is a different story, there you are clearly in violation. If it wouldn't be like that how would you ever verify that it is legal for you to download any software at all (for instance an open source distro), after all typically you are not shown the license agreement prior to download but upon installation (or, in many cases after that).

ComputerGuru 16y ago
Crappy excuse, because it applies to binary software too. I find a file called "Microsoft Office" on a torrent site, I don't know the license until I download it. If you're going to argue "but you can Google it" then (a) the same applies to source code, and (b) put some abandoned but stil payware & under copyright title instead of "Microsoft Office" and the argument will hold (Google won't help).
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Sure. So I label it gcc.torrent and send you the link, you download it, find out that it's microsoft office after all, boom you go to jail right?
  - ComputerGuru 16y ago
    Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. Only saying that your example is not actually applicable, because it's nothing to do with having seen the EULA. It's all about intent.
roel_v 16y ago
This does not make sense in any legal sense, I mean not make sense like someone saying "I was programming html yesterday by uploadeding some ram chips into my programming software". Works are by default copyrighted, it doesn't matter if the user has to download the copyright statement or read it or whatever - copyright is a ius sui generis, it has nothing to do with contract law. Furthermore downloading is distributing, see paragraph 5 of the Auteurswet; and no in this context it does not fall under the exceptions of art 13a. Then, there is no "good faith" exception. This is completely irrelevant. The "thuiskopie" (home copy for non-Dutch speakers following along) is allowed explicitly through articles 16b and c of the Auteurswet ("Authors Law", Dutch copyright law). However there is an exception for software in art 45n that explicitly says that artt 16b and c are not applicable to works as defined in 10, 1st paragraph under 12. And when we look at that article, it defines software as "computerprogramma’s en het voorbereidend materiaal", meaning "computer programs and their preparation material". One could argue that "computer programs" already comprises source code but we don't have to - they are explictly defined as being treated the same as "software", however one may want to define that in itself (it is probably in the parliamentary history but I don't at the moment have access to Kluwer Online (the Dutch equivalent of Lexis Nexis) to check. The rest makes equally little sense - no, it doesn't "become grey" if you decide not to delete it, all of that is completely irrelevant. It is the downloading that matters! This is the only thing the Auteurswet sees to, it says nothing of what you do with it afterward! (also, I'm using many exclamation marks in this post! Sorry about that!) As for the last sentence, again reading the licence is irrelevant. What is relevant is the intent of the author. How that intent is communicated doesn't matter; in most cases it will be done through putting the link to the software somewhere and putting 'hey download my software here' or so next to it.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  "hey download my software here": http://www.opensc.ws/attachments/c-c/5053d1296301011-kaspersky-8-source-code-leak-torrent-kav8_src.zip http://www.opensc.ws/attachments/c-c/5053d1296301011-kaspers...
  - noarchy 16y ago
    "504 Gateway Time-out" Edit: It's a popular link right now, understandably. Sometimes it's working, sometimes it isn't.
tzs 16y ago
> If the source code is distributed then the user would have to download it in order to be able to see the copyright statement. In this case the title of the software will probably be reason enough to make it hard for you to argue that but technically you could claim you thought this was a source distribution and only after you downloaded it you found out that it was copyrighted and not meant for release. The Netherlands has been a signatory of the Berne Convention since 1912. Under Berne, copyright must be automatic, so saying you had to download it to check if it was copyrighted is probably not going to get you very far.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  The key bit was 'and not meant for release'. Of course it is copyrighted, it is copyrighted upon creation. So is every open source package that is not placed in the public domain. The distribution of copyrighted software per-se is not illegal. Distributing software that you have no license to redistribute is illegal.

dchest 16y ago

Click here: http://pastie.org/1509163 http://pastie.org/1509163 This is a source code file from my program, for which all rights belong to me. It has been obtained and put there by my wife without my permission. By opening this link you made an illegal copy of it. You'll soon hear from my lawyers.

jacquesm 16y ago
Exactly. If it were that easy to get people to do something illegal then the jails would overflow. The improved version: <img width=2 height=2 src='http://pastie.org/1509163&#62 http://pastie.org/1509163>