3 ms·

Don't know why this is being downvoted. This is a very valid point. Stealing code seems to be like pornography, i.e, you know it when you see it. Except ther

by o_nate 11y ago

Don't know why this is being downvoted. This is a very valid point. Stealing code seems to be like pornography, i.e, you know it when you see it. Except there are lots of grey areas. What if instead of downloading the code on his last day of work, he had downloaded it a few months earlier? What if he hadn't erased his shell history? It seems that what constitutes stealing versus valid copying depends on his intent - which is a pretty weird definition of stealing when you think about it. Whether or not I stole your wallet doesn't depend on my thought process at the time. Edit: can't seem to reply to response below, so I'll just add here, if code theft requires intent to "permanently deprive" someone of their property then you need a pretty strange definition of "permanently deprive" as well.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> It seems that what constitutes stealing versus valid copying depends on his intent - which is a pretty weird definition of stealing when you think about it. Whether or not I stole your wallet doesn't depend on my thought process at the time. Actually, it usually does: "Theft is often defined as the unauthorized taking of property from another with the intent to permanently deprive them of it." [0] (emphasis added) [0] http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/theft-overview.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/theft-overview....
DanBC 11y ago
Well, theft means to take something with the intention of permanently depriving its owner of it, which is why there are different crimes for TWOCing (taking without owners consent) in UK and probably similar in US, so it's not that unusual to consider the intent of the perpetrator. Mens rea or something.
- o_nate 11y ago
  OK, you guys got me. I'm not a lawyer. So the legal definition of theft does depend to some degree on intent. I've learned something today. In that case, allow me to reframe my argument. I'll be generous and replace the term "intent to permanently deprive" with "intent to harm". Still, proving intent to harm is (or should be) much more difficult in cases when you have only made a virtual copy of something, and I think the bar is being set too low in some of these cases. So I think there is some validity to the argument that these financial firms are shooting themselves in the foot by being too zealous in persecuting behavior that can (or should) fall into a grey area.
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    Encrypting and uploading code offsite, that you know is proprietary and against your employment contract should be a pretty clear black and white issue of why it is illegal, especially in the surrounding context of this case.
    - o_nate 11y ago
      I don't really get what encrypting has to do with anything in this context. In any case, I'm less interested in the specific facts of this case than in other similar but less publicized cases where companies have gone after people who had copies on their home computers or had emailed code to themselves. Both maybe against company policy, but certainly an understandable misstep if you frequently work from home.
      - res0nat0r 11y ago
        Sure, but in this case it wasn't an accidental misstep, it was deliberate. Other cases would also have to prove intentional harm vs. some harmless oversight.
    - neonbat 11y ago
      You're wrong bud ;) 1. Even if he violated his contract that's a civil lawsuit between two contracted parties, not a criminal matter involving the government. 2. The intent was pretty unclear. Since this somehow ended up as a criminal lawsuit. Typically what we see in a criminal lawsuit 95% standard of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt). You can't really prove he knew that it was proprietary code and you can't really prove his intent to steal it. When there's uncertainty below the standard of proof the defendant walks free. That's how it's supposed to work. 3. This case was overturned at the federal level. He's now being convicted at the state level, he might get convicted just because the state courts kind of suck. My personal opinion is that there's just not enough evidence to prove that he had intent to steal, it's just not there. It looks like double jeopardy and the judge just threw out the vast majority of the prosecution's evidence which was illegally obtained. My prediction: He walks free.
derekp7 11y ago
Keep in mind that part of owning copyright to something (actually, the main part) is having exclusive control over copying / distribution. Having exclusive control is a property of copyright, if you will. So making the unauthorized copy is permanently depriving the copyright holder of that exclusive control. Another way of looking at it: Lets say you were a collector of widgets. And Acme Widget Co. markets a given widget, which they say only 100 instances of it are ever made or are going to be made. So you purchase that widget because you know it will be worth a premium to other widget collectors, due to its rarity. Now, assume that after you fork over big money for a 1-in-100 widget, Acme then decides to make a million of them, selling for a fraction of the original price. Now your specific widget, which you still own, is worth much less. Wouldn't you want to sue to get your purchase price back, since they sold it to you under false pretences?
amyjess 11y ago
> What if instead of downloading the code on his last day of work, he had downloaded it a few months earlier? What if he hadn't erased his shell history? It doesn't really matter. By uploading the code, he committed numerous violations: breaking copyright, breaking confidentiality agreements, breaking the CFAA, etc. In his case, there is no valid copying. That he zapped his shell history is just a bunch of sugar showing that he knew what he was doing was wrong. That he did it upon the day he left for a new job gives him a financial motive for doing what he did. Both are just the icing on the cake; even if he didn't do either, he'd still be in deep shit just for uploading the code at all.

by o_nate 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> It seems that what constitutes stealing versus valid copying depends on his intent - which is a pretty weird definition of stealing when you think about it. Whether or not I stole your wallet doesn't depend on my thought process at the time. Actually, it usually does: "Theft is often defined as the unauthorized taking of property from another with the intent to permanently deprive them of it." [0] (emphasis added) [0] http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/theft-overview.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/theft-overview....

DanBC 11y ago

Well, theft means to take something with the intention of permanently depriving its owner of it, which is why there are different crimes for TWOCing (taking without owners consent) in UK and probably similar in US, so it's not that unusual to consider the intent of the perpetrator. Mens rea or something.

o_nate 11y ago
OK, you guys got me. I'm not a lawyer. So the legal definition of theft does depend to some degree on intent. I've learned something today. In that case, allow me to reframe my argument. I'll be generous and replace the term "intent to permanently deprive" with "intent to harm". Still, proving intent to harm is (or should be) much more difficult in cases when you have only made a virtual copy of something, and I think the bar is being set too low in some of these cases. So I think there is some validity to the argument that these financial firms are shooting themselves in the foot by being too zealous in persecuting behavior that can (or should) fall into a grey area.
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  Encrypting and uploading code offsite, that you know is proprietary and against your employment contract should be a pretty clear black and white issue of why it is illegal, especially in the surrounding context of this case.
  - o_nate 11y ago
    I don't really get what encrypting has to do with anything in this context. In any case, I'm less interested in the specific facts of this case than in other similar but less publicized cases where companies have gone after people who had copies on their home computers or had emailed code to themselves. Both maybe against company policy, but certainly an understandable misstep if you frequently work from home.
    - res0nat0r 11y ago
      Sure, but in this case it wasn't an accidental misstep, it was deliberate. Other cases would also have to prove intentional harm vs. some harmless oversight.
  - neonbat 11y ago
    You're wrong bud ;) 1. Even if he violated his contract that's a civil lawsuit between two contracted parties, not a criminal matter involving the government. 2. The intent was pretty unclear. Since this somehow ended up as a criminal lawsuit. Typically what we see in a criminal lawsuit 95% standard of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt). You can't really prove he knew that it was proprietary code and you can't really prove his intent to steal it. When there's uncertainty below the standard of proof the defendant walks free. That's how it's supposed to work. 3. This case was overturned at the federal level. He's now being convicted at the state level, he might get convicted just because the state courts kind of suck. My personal opinion is that there's just not enough evidence to prove that he had intent to steal, it's just not there. It looks like double jeopardy and the judge just threw out the vast majority of the prosecution's evidence which was illegally obtained. My prediction: He walks free.

derekp7 11y ago

Keep in mind that part of owning copyright to something (actually, the main part) is having exclusive control over copying / distribution. Having exclusive control is a property of copyright, if you will. So making the unauthorized copy is permanently depriving the copyright holder of that exclusive control. Another way of looking at it: Lets say you were a collector of widgets. And Acme Widget Co. markets a given widget, which they say only 100 instances of it are ever made or are going to be made. So you purchase that widget because you know it will be worth a premium to other widget collectors, due to its rarity. Now, assume that after you fork over big money for a 1-in-100 widget, Acme then decides to make a million of them, selling for a fraction of the original price. Now your specific widget, which you still own, is worth much less. Wouldn't you want to sue to get your purchase price back, since they sold it to you under false pretences?

amyjess 11y ago

> What if instead of downloading the code on his last day of work, he had downloaded it a few months earlier? What if he hadn't erased his shell history? It doesn't really matter. By uploading the code, he committed numerous violations: breaking copyright, breaking confidentiality agreements, breaking the CFAA, etc. In his case, there is no valid copying. That he zapped his shell history is just a bunch of sugar showing that he knew what he was doing was wrong. That he did it upon the day he left for a new job gives him a financial motive for doing what he did. Both are just the icing on the cake; even if he didn't do either, he'd still be in deep shit just for uploading the code at all.