Shouldn't that legalize software piracy? They made stipulations about music and video not counting but this sounds to me like Windows 7 Ultimate and Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 are now free for the taking.

alaric3: Shouldn't that legalize software piracy? They made stipulations about music and video not counting but this sounds to me like Windows 7 Ultimate and Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 are now free for the taking.

well...no. it's still copyright infringement. so you still have options under the civil code. What this decision does is biatch slap the dept of homeland security for shutting down file trading websites, not to mention sets RIAA back on its pins.

Well, those are products with closed source as opposed to actual source code so I imagine it's a little more tricky. Lawyers can probably redefine this ruling to suit their needs pretty easily though.

alaric3: Shouldn't that legalize software piracy? They made stipulations about music and video not counting but this sounds to me like Windows 7 Ultimate and Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 are now free for the taking.

There's a difference between "Stealing" and "Acquiring illegally".

"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 court wrote in its decision.

Key phrase is bolded above.

I'm no lawyer, but after reading that it seems that they are denying the existence of IP.

kingoomieiii: alaric3: Shouldn't that legalize software piracy? They made stipulations about music and video not counting but this sounds to me like Windows 7 Ultimate and Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 are now free for the taking.

There's a difference between "Stealing" and "Acquiring illegally".

"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 court wrote in its decision.

Key phrase is bolded above.

Holy shiat, someone in the legal system actually understands the difference between stealing and piracy!

Weaver95: alaric3: Shouldn't that legalize software piracy? They made stipulations about music and video not counting but this sounds to me like Windows 7 Ultimate and Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 are now free for the taking.

well...no. it's still copyright infringement. so you still have options under the civil code. What this decision does is biatch slap the dept of homeland security for shutting down file trading websites, not to mention sets RIAA back on its pins.

Which is why I'm planning to copyright 1 and 0. Then every piece of software will be mine..all mine!!!

Eddie Adams from Torrance:

Which is why I'm planning to copyright 1 and 0. Then every piece of software will be mine..all mine!!!

Too late, its public domain.

The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court ruled that since computer code cannot be physically obtained, it doesn't fit the legal description of a stolen good.

Wow. So, you can steal any computer code you want, and as long as you don't use it to make a profit, you're good? Is that how to correctly interpret that? Did they seriously legalize stealing code because you can't physically steal code, because you cannot wrap your arms around a line of code?

That is a seriously dangerous precedent.

GAT_00: That is a seriously dangerous precedent.

No, it just kicks it back to being a civil matter of copyright infringement. Which is all it should ever be.

WhyteRaven74: GAT_00: That is a seriously dangerous precedent.

No, it just kicks it back to being a civil matter of copyright infringement. Which is all it should ever be.

But it says that stealing it isn't a crime. So, if you were to steal the entire code for whatever program, but break no other laws and attempt to make no profit from it, then you haven't committed a crime. Is that what it says, because that's how I read it.

GAT_00: But it says that stealing it isn't a crime.

No it says you can't steal code. However you can still get your ass sued into the middle of next year. Basically since code isn't tangible, unlike say a car or a steak, you can't really steel it in the sense of taking it away from someone and depriving them of its use and/or income derived from its use or sale. So then it's up to whoever owns the copyright to come after you. Of course if you haven't used it for commercial purposes, haven't sold it and some other things, that could be tricky depending on exactly what was done.

GAT_00: But it says that stealing it isn't a crime. So, if you were to steal the entire code for whatever program, but break no other laws and attempt to make no profit from it, then you haven't committed a crime. Is that what it says, because that's how I read it.

You're getting hung up on the IP argument, I think. Publicizing the proprietary code secrets of a piece of software might be intellectual property infringement, but it isn't theft, which is what this guy was convicted for.

The difference being that the penalty for trying to "copy that floppy" is most significantly NOT jail time. IP still exists. You just can't go to jail for violating it.

WhyteRaven74: Of course if you haven't used it for commercial purposes, haven't sold it and some other things, that could be tricky depending on exactly what was done.

Exactly. If you're taking a closed-source piece of software and using it in your own homebrew programming for some other project, go nuts. But you can't use that code as the basis for your new game World of Snorecraft and try to sell it without Blizzard climbing straight up your ass.

Humean_Nature: You're getting hung up on the IP argument, I think.

Yeah, but the case in question got someone out of prison after spending time for code theft.

Humean_Nature: WhyteRaven74: Of course if you haven't used it for commercial purposes, haven't sold it and some other things, that could be tricky depending on exactly what was done.

Exactly. If you're taking a closed-source piece of software and using it in your own homebrew programming for some other project, go nuts. But you can't use that code as the basis for your new game World of Snorecraft and try to sell it without Blizzard climbing straight up your ass.

Yeah, this is what I meant. If you steal it, break no other laws, and then at no point do you release it or try to profit from it, that's legal now?

GAT_00: Yeah, this is what I meant. If you steal it, break no other laws, and then at no point do you release it or try to profit from it, that's legal now?

Pretty much. It's like memorizing a book and then never ever writing it down and trying to pass it off as your own work. You've made a copy that isn't authorized, but you'll never show it to anyone or try to make money off of it. Where's the plagiarism?

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Which is why I'm planning to copyright 1 and 0. Then every piece of software will be mine..all mine!!!

Well, you should really copyright 1 or 0 if you're trying to cover your bases.

Court rules that a law was poorly drafted. The concurring opinion states "it is hard for me to conclude that Congress, in this law, actually meant to exempt the kind of behavior in which Aleynikov engaged."

kingoomieiii: "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 court wrote in its decision.

If someone downloads a CD or movie, they don't deprive anyone else of its use, right?

I mean:
The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court ruled that since computer code cannot be physically obtained, it doesn't fit the legal description of a stolen good.

Means that you're not "stealing" CDs. I get that there's still copyright issues, but this decision seems to agree with those who have tried to explain that downloading music and movies isn't theft.

I think this is an awful decision. Removing the threat of pound-me-in-the-ass Federal prison from the equation will doom IP as we know it.

I mean, remember when there was music on the radio in the '70s, and cassette tapes came out, and every music company went bankrupt? And there's been no music published since then because of the inability to profit?

And movies -- hell, I remember those from the Seventies, but since Betamax came out, there was no way you could make a movie that made money, and all of the studios folded. I sure wish I could see something in a, what was it called, "cinema"?

Wow, and I can't even imagine what the software industry would have been like. We might even have had home computers by this point, and games you could play on them. This law was a bright spot which might have even allowed for the existence and growth of "software companies", but now I imagine the adding machine factories are redoubling their workforces, seeing as there will be no other option for the foreseeable future.

BWAHAHAHAHA

timujin: kingoomieiii: "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 court wrote in its decision.

If someone downloads a CD or movie, they don't deprive anyone else of its use, right?

I mean:
The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court ruled that since computer code cannot be physically obtained, it doesn't fit the legal description of a stolen good.

Means that you're not "stealing" CDs. I get that there's still copyright issues, but this decision seems to agree with those who have tried to explain that downloading music and movies isn't theft.

This is 100% accurate. Pirates are using illegal means to remove the seller from the equation. They are causing POTENTIAL lost sales to the copyright holder, but they are not removing manufactured goods that then have to be replaced.

ZAZ: Court rules that a law was poorly drafted. The concurring opinion states "it is hard for me to conclude that Congress, in this law, actually meant to exempt the kind of behavior in which Aleynikov engaged."

The unforeseen impact is that Congress is going to be pushed even harder to push an expanded SOPA or some such derivative.

alaric3: Shouldn't that legalize software piracy? They made stipulations about music and video not counting but this sounds to me like Windows 7 Ultimate and Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 are now free for the taking.

No, because piracy of software involves getting around regiatration/authentication schemes... which is still probably a crime of some sort. Its not "stealing", but its something.

This ruling amounts to taking a byte out of crime.

scottydoesntknow: Holy shiat, someone in the legal system actually understands the difference between stealing and piracy!

I'm shocked.

I_Am_Weasel: This ruling amounts to taking a byte out of crime.

Grooooooaan.

Weaver95: alaric3: Shouldn't that legalize software piracy? They made stipulations about music and video not counting but this sounds to me like Windows 7 Ultimate and Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 are now free for the taking.

well...no. it's still copyright infringement. so you still have options under the civil code. What this decision does is biatch slap the dept of homeland security for shutting down file trading websites, not to mention sets RIAA back on its pins.

And that's it in a nutshell.

All of the stupid arguments about piracy being theft are now officially out the window; there is court precedent to back that assertion.

GAT_00: Did they seriously legalize stealing code

No. If I go in and physically take code in such a way that it DEPRIVES THE OWNER of something, then I've stolen it and it is still illegal.

This says that copying code is not theft. Because it doesn't deprive the owner of the code.

That's different.

What it is really going to do is drive the patent office into a frenzy as software companies try to patent their code to protect it from this ruling.

unlikely: What it is really going to do is drive the patent office into a frenzy as software companies try to patent their code to protect it from this ruling.

And upon reflection, this will also be really revealing.

Remember when Bing got caught using Google's results repackaged?

Weaver95

This should have no effect on the web sites or RIAA. The court found two criminal laws inapplicable to the acts in question.

First, computer software in the form of electronic signals is not "stolen goods" for the purposes of a federal law criminalizing moving valuable stolen goods across state lines. However, under circuit precedent burning the program to DVD and carrying the DVD across state lines could be a crime. The court had previously ruled that photocopies of valuable trade secrets fell within the scope of the law. See section I.A on page 12 of the opinion. The question is not "is this intellectual property?" but rather "is this a tangible object?"

Second, the economic espionage count applies to products sold in commerce rather. Goldman Sachs' software was a trade secret not sold in commerce. Congress did not, as it often does, extend the law to reach all acts "affecting" interstate commerce.

Mass copying of movies and software will continue to be criminal copyright infringement.

First sentence of penultimate paragraph should read "Second, the economic espionage count applies to products sold in commerce rather than products used to affect commerce."

unlikely: What it is really going to do is drive the patent office into a frenzy as software companies try to patent their code to protect it from this ruling.

Software is copyrighted, not patented. You can patent inventions implemented in software, but not the software itself.

GAT_00: Humean_Nature: WhyteRaven74: Of course if you haven't used it for commercial purposes, haven't sold it and some other things, that could be tricky depending on exactly what was done.

Exactly. If you're taking a closed-source piece of software and using it in your own homebrew programming for some other project, go nuts. But you can't use that code as the basis for your new game World of Snorecraft and try to sell it without Blizzard climbing straight up your ass.

Yeah, this is what I meant. If you steal it, break no other laws, and then at no point do you release it or try to profit from it, that's legal now?

The word in bold is your problem. It's not "stealing," any more than this is:

I see a red door and I want it painted black
No colors anymore I want them to turn black
I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes
I have to turn my head until my darkness goes

I see a line of cars and they're all painted black
With flowers and my love, both never to come back
I see people turn their heads and quickly look away
Like a newborn baby it just happens ev'ryday

No more will my green sea go turn a deeper blue
I could not forsee this thing happening to you
If I look hard enough into the setting sun
My love will laugh with me before the morning comes
I look inside myself and see my heart is black
I see my red door and it has been painted black
Maybe then I'll fade away and not have to face the facts
It's not easy facing up when your whole world is black

I see a red door and I want it painted black
No colors anymore I want them to turn black
I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes
I have to turn my head until my darkness goes

Hmm, hmm, hmm...

I wanna see it painted black, painted black
Black as night, black as coal
I wanna see the sun, blotted out from the sky
I wanna see it painted, painted, painted, painted black
Yeah

Hmm, hmm, hmm...

You could argue that it's copyright infringement, but it's not stealing. Stop using the word and then you might be able to have a rational conversation.

ZAZ:
Mass copying of movies and software will continue to be criminal copyright infringement.

but not theft, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

ZAZ: This should have no effect on the web sites or RIAA. The court found two criminal laws inapplicable to the acts in question.

Correct. The RIAA/MPAA have never used the term "theft" in the legal sense. Because their lawyers are smarter than that. They're going after copyright infringement.

They may have used the term "theft" in an off-handed way. But never tried to get a prosecutor to go after a person for criminal theft.

Nothing to see here. The prosecutor, Goldman Sachs, and the courts farked up... that is all.

A few years too late for Kevin Mitnick...

Well, that's definitely a good thing anyway.

Babwa Wawa: unlikely

Exactly. They'll tie themselves in knots trying to say "this piece of code is an innovation and therefore patentable"

downstairs: The RIAA/MPAA have never used the term "theft" in the legal sense.

They sure the hell implied it, though.

So, I can copy that floppy?

Son I Am Disappoint

The legal definition of theft needs to be updated to take these things into account. Deprivation is not what makes theft wrong, nor should the definition of theft hinge upon it.

I understand the arguments, and that because a copy of code doesn't deprive the "owner" of it's use, it can't really be stolen, but I still wish to hell that our legal system (and our language, for that matter) had the concept of a moral theft.

When something intangible has value to it's creator, and it has value to YOU, and you obtain said thing without compensating the creator - you've done something morally wrong, and you create a disincentive (however small) for the creator to continue creating.

Justify it all you want with your talk of how broken the system is or how the wrong people get paid, I still stand by the above statement. As someone who writes software for a living, and who has had my work misappropriated and lost money out of my own pocket because of it, I just can't see it any other way.

GAT_00: code theft

You keep using this word. Etc.

Stop being stupid.

NutWrench: downstairs: The RIAA/MPAA have never used the term "theft" in the legal sense.

They sure the hell implied it, though.

Oh no, they have outright said it. Just look at those commercials before movies saying "You wouldn't steal a car? Why would you steal a movie?" They just never applied it to any legal setting. Their lawyers are smarter than that.

They could run those commercials again saying "You would never commit arson on a car, why would you commit arson on a movie?" It wouldn't change the fact that when they sue people over downloading music/movies/whatever they use copyright infringement as their legal backing.

alaric3: Shouldn't that legalize software piracy? They made stipulations about music and video not counting but this sounds to me like Windows 7 Ultimate and Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 are now free for the taking.

Weaver95: alaric3: Shouldn't that legalize software piracy? They made stipulations about music and video not counting but this sounds to me like Windows 7 Ultimate and Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 are now free for the taking.

well...no. it's still copyright infringement. so you still have options under the civil code. What this decision does is biatch slap the dept of homeland security for shutting down file trading websites, not to mention sets RIAA back on its pins.

So a win for all reasonable software-using people everywhere! (that the US courts have jurisdiction over)

Herbie555: I understand the arguments, and that because a copy of code doesn't deprive the "owner" of it's use, it can't really be stolen, but I still wish to hell that our legal system (and our language, for that matter) had the concept of a moral theft.

Yeah. Legislating morality. That always works out so well.

What if I hold a mirror up to my TV and have you watch it from outside my house?