3 ms·
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 p
by 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.
- roel_v 16y agoWay to side-step the substance of the discussion... If you're going to make outrageous claims like "Distributing it is illegal where I live, but downloading it is not." and "This is not 'pirated software', it's leaked source code. That makes distribution copyright infringement and downloading in good faith legal.", either stand by them and defend them in an intellectually honest way, or refine or explain your statements if I/other readers misunderstood them, or abandon your position all together. All you're doing now is arguing a straw man to not have to do any of those. Besides, what, in your opinion, does you posting this link show? That it is factually possible to trick people into downloading copyright-protected works without the author of that work's consent? Please, you think I or anyone here needed convincing of that?
- jacquesm 16y agoNo, it simply means that the act of downloading source code in and of itself is not illegal. Your intent, the circumstances and what you do afterwards figure in to the discussion as well. You want to make it seem as though the simple act of downloading copyrighted software is illegal and I think that it is not that simple. In practice the situation is complicated, and since there is no enforcement against downloaders of software that is illegal whatsoever anyway the whole point as far as I'm concerned is moot.
- roel_v 16y ago@your first sentence: IT IS. How can you interpret the Auteurswet any other way? Please tell me how you can come to this conclusion because I really do not understand how you can honestly make this claim. @the third, IT IS, it says so right in the Auteurswet that I quoted several sections from a few posts up, explaining exactly why your reasoning was wrong! And you of course the factual situation is so that it makes the legal reality irrelevant. But it's not because stealing a bike in practice does not have any consequences that it is legal. (I'm not trying to move this into a copyright violation/theft discussion, it's just an example of another infraction of the law). My beef here is that you are making broad sweeping, demonstrably factually wrong claims about the law and then weave a web of straw man and vigorous assertion fallacies to not have to address them.