6 ms·

A car is a physical good whereby for one person to have it, another must be deprived it. Code is not a physical good so the rules can be very, very different.

frozenport 11y ago
>>physical good What an interesting opinion. The value of a thing comes, in part, from the labor to get it. His employer paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to make this code. On the other hand, stealing it, unlike a car, results in a duplication with the original still in working condition. Was anything lost, physically no, but he did commit a serious breach of contract rather than theft.
tormeh 11y ago
Inany cases the value of a good depends on other people not having it. Why this is hard to understand is beyond me.
- jrochkind1 11y ago
  So you could consider Linux to be of no value? I assume you don't use it then? Or any other open source software, which you consider worthless?
  - tormeh 11y ago
    Typo: should be "in many" instead of inany
- knodi123 11y ago
  the value of a good that is being sold depends on the supply of that good in the marketplace. if there's no change in the supply in the marketplace (i.e. if the dude kept the sourcecode for personal reasons and never shared it), then there is simply no harm whatsoever.
- bediger4000 11y ago
  That is absolutely untrue in many (but not all) cases of "intellectual property". Let's take some extremely valuable "IP", Microsoft's "Word" word processor. If one person had exclusive use of "Word", the "IP" would be worth a great deal less than it is right now, when almost everyone has "Word". The property here is called "network effects", and it also applies to physical property. If only two telephones exist, they're a good deal less valuable than if everyone has a telephone.
  - tormeh 11y ago
    Typo: should be "in many" instead of inany
mikeash 11y ago
That is true, but it all ultimately comes down to some sort of financial loss. Car theft is damaging to the extent that the car is worth a certain amount of money. (This is ignoring the potential emotional connection which, while it can be strong, is mostly ignored in the law.) That we put car thieves in prison means that we're willing to imprison people for purely financial losses. If code theft causes a financial loss (and there's nothing inherently absurd about that as a possibility) then why wouldn't prison be a possibility there?
- uxp 11y ago
  > If code theft causes a financial loss then why wouldn't prison be a possibility there? The difference between stealing a car and putting it in a garage and stealing code and letting it sit on a flash drive in an office drawer is that the original owner of the car no longer has exclusive rights to use it, but the rightful owner of the code can continue to use their original property, often times exclusively. It's only when, as you eluded to, the stolen code gets used that a financial loss can be justified and I wouldn't argue against prison as a punishment. But, I'm not really arguing that stealing code or any other intellectual property is _not_ wrong, but there really is a difference between the common analogy of stealing a car, which I think most people who do argue that position are trying to justify. I don't think that a person or company can truly claim a financial loss if they become aware of someone else or another company is in possession of their code until they have proof that the code was used either as reference or directly.
sfk 11y ago
I'm so tired of hearing this. If you copy a $100 bill that belongs to someone else, the original owner also still has it. Why are developers so eager to deny that code has any value?
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Fiat currencies have completely different rules, subject to monetary policy and other factors.
derekp7 11y ago
With the car analogy, you are depriving the owner of exclusive use of it. With code, you are depriving the owner of exclusive use of it. I see no difference.
- knodi123 11y ago
  with the car analogy, you're depriving the owner of any and all use of it, and also of its resale value. with code, you are only depriving the owner of exclusivity, and then only if you use that code in the real world. and even then, it only becomes material harm if you actually use it to compete with them. it's vastly different.
  - nkassis 11y ago
    Yeah I think in the case of code or any intellectual property they should only be able to sue if you made actual use of it and it can be shown to have directly impacted the business. And in that case it should be handle as a civil lawsuit over criminal. I feel the same should be done for counterfeit goods.
rayiner 11y ago
I drive my car about twice a month, never on weekdays. If someone stole my car on Monday, they could use it all week and if they returned it on Friday with a tank of gas and $0.50 per mile for wear and tear, I'd be no worse off. Yet, that would still be illegal. But I would be deprived of the opportunity to rent my car to that person for a fee of my choosing. Similarly, I'm no worse off if someone squats on land I never use, or sneaks into my theater to watch a movie when half the seats are empty. But I am deprived of the opportunity to rent that land to the squatter, or sell a ticket to the movie watcher. Property rights don't just grant you the right not to be made worse off, they grant you the exclusive right to profit from something. Now, whether non-violent violations of property rights should be punished by jail time is a separate issue.
- msandford 11y ago
  If we're going to suggest that code and physical property are the same, then I would ask you to touch code for me. If you can do that I'm prepared to give code all the same rights as traditional property. If you can't then you might consider that physical goods and intellectual ones aren't the same and MAYBE different rules should apply.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - sfk 11y ago
    May I access your bank account and transfer some untouchable numbers to mine?
    - msandford 11y ago
      Those numbers are representative of real actual things. What real actual things is the code representative of?
      - ChrisLomont 11y ago
        Profits, which are as real as your money, because they are both money.
davidw 11y ago
There are definitions for these things: Rivalrous and non-rivalrous goods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)
rhino369 11y ago
Sure the rules can be different, but why should they? The reason for punishing is the harm done. I'd also argue that stealing code is depriving the owner the control of the code. The property interest is in the code in the non-tangible sense. It doesn't matter that I still have a copy. This is especially true for code that is confidential. A lot of the value of Goldman's code is that nobody else knows it. Otherwise you can predict their trades, which can cost them money. I just don't get the idea that millions of dollars of hard work can be stolen and it isn't a big deal because it's not physical. But everyone is okay when you throw a kid in jail for stealing a pair of Beats that cost 20 bucks to assemble.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
  > , but why should they? Because it changes the nature of the harm caused. Stealing a car is a crime not because the defendant has a car, it's a crime because the true owner no longer has his car. Stealing code... the true owner still has it. And while there may still be harm, it's certainly of a lesser sort. And in this case in particular, no harm occurred or could reasonably have occurred in any variation of the scenario. This is a craftsman keeping a photograph of his work for a portfolio. Nothing more. > A lot of the value of Goldman's code is that nobody else knows it. If that's the value... then that code has no value. > Otherwise you can predict their trades, Then their trades amount to gambling, and I don't see why the taxpayer should have to pay for security for their vice.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    >Stealing a car is a crime not because the defendant has a car, it's a crime because the true owner no longer has his car. It's a crime because he has someone else's car. A property interest in the US common law system has always carried a right of exclusion and a right of control. You are trying to limit it to just a right of possession. >And while there may still be harm, it's certainly of a lesser sort. Only because you insist that physical loss is always worse. Don't you think Goldman would be worse off if this code was taken vs. one of their cars? One is worth millions and the other several thousand dollars. In fact, we have a very easy way of deciding which is worse. The economic damage is causes. That is actually how society judges how bad stealing is. Theft over a certain amount is worse than petty theft. >This is a craftsman keeping a photograph of his work for a portfolio. Nothing more. That is another matter entirely. I do agree the state should have to prove he intended to use it or disclose it to the public/goldman competitors. It's sort analogous to borrowing vs stealing. Not every instance of taking without permission is stealing.

frozenport 11y ago

>>physical good What an interesting opinion. The value of a thing comes, in part, from the labor to get it. His employer paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to make this code. On the other hand, stealing it, unlike a car, results in a duplication with the original still in working condition. Was anything lost, physically no, but he did commit a serious breach of contract rather than theft.

tormeh 11y ago

Inany cases the value of a good depends on other people not having it. Why this is hard to understand is beyond me.

jrochkind1 11y ago
So you could consider Linux to be of no value? I assume you don't use it then? Or any other open source software, which you consider worthless?
- tormeh 11y ago
  Typo: should be "in many" instead of inany
knodi123 11y ago
the value of a good that is being sold depends on the supply of that good in the marketplace. if there's no change in the supply in the marketplace (i.e. if the dude kept the sourcecode for personal reasons and never shared it), then there is simply no harm whatsoever.
bediger4000 11y ago
That is absolutely untrue in many (but not all) cases of "intellectual property". Let's take some extremely valuable "IP", Microsoft's "Word" word processor. If one person had exclusive use of "Word", the "IP" would be worth a great deal less than it is right now, when almost everyone has "Word". The property here is called "network effects", and it also applies to physical property. If only two telephones exist, they're a good deal less valuable than if everyone has a telephone.
- tormeh 11y ago
  Typo: should be "in many" instead of inany

mikeash 11y ago

That is true, but it all ultimately comes down to some sort of financial loss. Car theft is damaging to the extent that the car is worth a certain amount of money. (This is ignoring the potential emotional connection which, while it can be strong, is mostly ignored in the law.) That we put car thieves in prison means that we're willing to imprison people for purely financial losses. If code theft causes a financial loss (and there's nothing inherently absurd about that as a possibility) then why wouldn't prison be a possibility there?

uxp 11y ago
> If code theft causes a financial loss then why wouldn't prison be a possibility there? The difference between stealing a car and putting it in a garage and stealing code and letting it sit on a flash drive in an office drawer is that the original owner of the car no longer has exclusive rights to use it, but the rightful owner of the code can continue to use their original property, often times exclusively. It's only when, as you eluded to, the stolen code gets used that a financial loss can be justified and I wouldn't argue against prison as a punishment. But, I'm not really arguing that stealing code or any other intellectual property is _not_ wrong, but there really is a difference between the common analogy of stealing a car, which I think most people who do argue that position are trying to justify. I don't think that a person or company can truly claim a financial loss if they become aware of someone else or another company is in possession of their code until they have proof that the code was used either as reference or directly.

sfk 11y ago

I'm so tired of hearing this. If you copy a $100 bill that belongs to someone else, the original owner also still has it. Why are developers so eager to deny that code has any value?

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Fiat currencies have completely different rules, subject to monetary policy and other factors.

derekp7 11y ago

With the car analogy, you are depriving the owner of exclusive use of it. With code, you are depriving the owner of exclusive use of it. I see no difference.

knodi123 11y ago
with the car analogy, you're depriving the owner of any and all use of it, and also of its resale value. with code, you are only depriving the owner of exclusivity, and then only if you use that code in the real world. and even then, it only becomes material harm if you actually use it to compete with them. it's vastly different.
- nkassis 11y ago
  Yeah I think in the case of code or any intellectual property they should only be able to sue if you made actual use of it and it can be shown to have directly impacted the business. And in that case it should be handle as a civil lawsuit over criminal. I feel the same should be done for counterfeit goods.

rayiner 11y ago

I drive my car about twice a month, never on weekdays. If someone stole my car on Monday, they could use it all week and if they returned it on Friday with a tank of gas and $0.50 per mile for wear and tear, I'd be no worse off. Yet, that would still be illegal. But I would be deprived of the opportunity to rent my car to that person for a fee of my choosing. Similarly, I'm no worse off if someone squats on land I never use, or sneaks into my theater to watch a movie when half the seats are empty. But I am deprived of the opportunity to rent that land to the squatter, or sell a ticket to the movie watcher. Property rights don't just grant you the right not to be made worse off, they grant you the exclusive right to profit from something. Now, whether non-violent violations of property rights should be punished by jail time is a separate issue.

msandford 11y ago
If we're going to suggest that code and physical property are the same, then I would ask you to touch code for me. If you can do that I'm prepared to give code all the same rights as traditional property. If you can't then you might consider that physical goods and intellectual ones aren't the same and MAYBE different rules should apply.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- sfk 11y ago
  May I access your bank account and transfer some untouchable numbers to mine?
  - msandford 11y ago
    Those numbers are representative of real actual things. What real actual things is the code representative of?
    - ChrisLomont 11y ago
      Profits, which are as real as your money, because they are both money.

davidw 11y ago

There are definitions for these things: Rivalrous and non-rivalrous goods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)

rhino369 11y ago

Sure the rules can be different, but why should they? The reason for punishing is the harm done. I'd also argue that stealing code is depriving the owner the control of the code. The property interest is in the code in the non-tangible sense. It doesn't matter that I still have a copy. This is especially true for code that is confidential. A lot of the value of Goldman's code is that nobody else knows it. Otherwise you can predict their trades, which can cost them money. I just don't get the idea that millions of dollars of hard work can be stolen and it isn't a big deal because it's not physical. But everyone is okay when you throw a kid in jail for stealing a pair of Beats that cost 20 bucks to assemble.

NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
> , but why should they? Because it changes the nature of the harm caused. Stealing a car is a crime not because the defendant has a car, it's a crime because the true owner no longer has his car. Stealing code... the true owner still has it. And while there may still be harm, it's certainly of a lesser sort. And in this case in particular, no harm occurred or could reasonably have occurred in any variation of the scenario. This is a craftsman keeping a photograph of his work for a portfolio. Nothing more. > A lot of the value of Goldman's code is that nobody else knows it. If that's the value... then that code has no value. > Otherwise you can predict their trades, Then their trades amount to gambling, and I don't see why the taxpayer should have to pay for security for their vice.
- rhino369 11y ago
  >Stealing a car is a crime not because the defendant has a car, it's a crime because the true owner no longer has his car. It's a crime because he has someone else's car. A property interest in the US common law system has always carried a right of exclusion and a right of control. You are trying to limit it to just a right of possession. >And while there may still be harm, it's certainly of a lesser sort. Only because you insist that physical loss is always worse. Don't you think Goldman would be worse off if this code was taken vs. one of their cars? One is worth millions and the other several thousand dollars. In fact, we have a very easy way of deciding which is worse. The economic damage is causes. That is actually how society judges how bad stealing is. Theft over a certain amount is worse than petty theft. >This is a craftsman keeping a photograph of his work for a portfolio. Nothing more. That is another matter entirely. I do agree the state should have to prove he intended to use it or disclose it to the public/goldman competitors. It's sort analogous to borrowing vs stealing. Not every instance of taking without permission is stealing.