4 ms·

Code not physical property

shadesandcolour 15y ago
So if our code isn't a physical thing and can't be stolen, can we say the same thing for other digital files, like movies and music?
- chc 15y ago
  Yes, we already do. AFAIK, the number of people who have been prosecuted for theft of a digital movie file (as opposed to violations of copyright law) is zero.
  - shadesandcolour 15y ago
    I've definitely read things, and maybe they were just statements from the RIAA/MPAA, that said copyright infringement was exactly the same thing as theft. Or am I making that up?
    - anonymoushn 15y ago
      If such an assertion were true, it would be terrible for their business. Theft of a $20 object is not generally punishable by a fine of $100,000.
    - msbarnett 15y ago
      They're certainly happy to describe it that way in PR moves and the like, but they've only ever really sued people over copyright infringement, or pursued criminal copyright infringement charges. Actually charging a copyright infringer with criminal theft of property, as opposed to just colloquially calling such infringement theft, is a fairly novel legal tactic.
- pagekalisedown 15y ago
  This is an interesting question. I wish this question was put forth to the Supreme Court.
- bo1024 15y ago
  Of course. This is obvious to anyone who isn't indoctrinated by copyright industry doublespeak. Copyright law is a restriction on the copying of information. Theft has no place in copyright law and never has. It is merely a perjorative term used to confuse the issue. Edit: Apologies for my angry tone. As you can tell, this really bothers me.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  Can we? We have been for ages! For more than a decade now! It's an argument that's been repeated over and over and over again.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
Now that is an interesting monkey in the wrench. A 2nd Circuit opinion that allows that "He (the defendant) argues that: [1] the source code was not a “stolen” “good” within the meaning of the NSPA, and [2] the source code was not “related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce” within the meaning of the EEA. The judgement of the district court is reversed." Which narrows the opinion to the definitions in the NSPA and EEA but I think some creative lawyering should be able to get this into things like code to compress images for example. It will be interesting to see if anyone can use this as leverage in the ongoing copyright/patent/IP discussion.
vishaldpatel 15y ago
It would be lovely to read an IP lawyer's opinion on this story's implications. Does this mean that a programmer working at a firm can walk away with code without breaking any laws?
- anonymoushn 15y ago
  No. You will probably be breaking some laws, but not laws against theft.
Radzell 15y ago
I like that he got off, but does that means for the hackers that took googles code. What happens to all patents on software.
Maxious 15y ago
Interesting that they did agree that digital money (wire transfers) is property. So one set of bits is theft but another set isn't.
- BerislavLopac 15y ago
  Which is particularly ridiculous, as _money_ is not physical at all. Even physical money -- bills and coins -- is just information, just as when you write down your phone number on a piece of paper.
  - eli_gottlieb 15y ago
    Well no. Physical money is scarce information.
    - BerislavLopac 15y ago
      True, but money is not limited to the physical form.
- username3 15y ago
  FTA, “Because Aleynikov did not ‘assume physical control’ over anything when he took the source code, and because he did not thereby ‘deprive [Goldman] of its use,’ Aleynikov did not violate the [National Stolen Property Act],” the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in its opinion (.pdf). Theft of digital money deprives.

So if our code isn't a physical thing and can't be stolen, can we say the same thing for other digital files, like movies and music?

chc 15y ago
Yes, we already do. AFAIK, the number of people who have been prosecuted for theft of a digital movie file (as opposed to violations of copyright law) is zero.
- shadesandcolour 15y ago
  I've definitely read things, and maybe they were just statements from the RIAA/MPAA, that said copyright infringement was exactly the same thing as theft. Or am I making that up?
  - anonymoushn 15y ago
    If such an assertion were true, it would be terrible for their business. Theft of a $20 object is not generally punishable by a fine of $100,000.
  - msbarnett 15y ago
    They're certainly happy to describe it that way in PR moves and the like, but they've only ever really sued people over copyright infringement, or pursued criminal copyright infringement charges. Actually charging a copyright infringer with criminal theft of property, as opposed to just colloquially calling such infringement theft, is a fairly novel legal tactic.
pagekalisedown 15y ago
This is an interesting question. I wish this question was put forth to the Supreme Court.
bo1024 15y ago
Of course. This is obvious to anyone who isn't indoctrinated by copyright industry doublespeak. Copyright law is a restriction on the copying of information. Theft has no place in copyright law and never has. It is merely a perjorative term used to confuse the issue. Edit: Apologies for my angry tone. As you can tell, this really bothers me.
jasonlotito 15y ago
Can we? We have been for ages! For more than a decade now! It's an argument that's been repeated over and over and over again.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

Now that is an interesting monkey in the wrench. A 2nd Circuit opinion that allows that "He (the defendant) argues that: [1] the source code was not a “stolen” “good” within the meaning of the NSPA, and [2] the source code was not “related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce” within the meaning of the EEA. The judgement of the district court is reversed." Which narrows the opinion to the definitions in the NSPA and EEA but I think some creative lawyering should be able to get this into things like code to compress images for example. It will be interesting to see if anyone can use this as leverage in the ongoing copyright/patent/IP discussion.

vishaldpatel 15y ago

It would be lovely to read an IP lawyer's opinion on this story's implications. Does this mean that a programmer working at a firm can walk away with code without breaking any laws?

anonymoushn 15y ago
No. You will probably be breaking some laws, but not laws against theft.

Radzell 15y ago

I like that he got off, but does that means for the hackers that took googles code. What happens to all patents on software.

Maxious 15y ago

Interesting that they did agree that digital money (wire transfers) is property. So one set of bits is theft but another set isn't.

BerislavLopac 15y ago
Which is particularly ridiculous, as _money_ is not physical at all. Even physical money -- bills and coins -- is just information, just as when you write down your phone number on a piece of paper.
- eli_gottlieb 15y ago
  Well no. Physical money is scarce information.
  - BerislavLopac 15y ago
    True, but money is not limited to the physical form.
username3 15y ago
FTA, “Because Aleynikov did not ‘assume physical control’ over anything when he took the source code, and because he did not thereby ‘deprive [Goldman] of its use,’ Aleynikov did not violate the [National Stolen Property Act],” the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in its opinion (.pdf). Theft of digital money deprives.