Judge: Code Can't Be Stolen Because It Isn't Property

[sarezar]

This ruling was against the EEA 1996. Read the article again. It has nothing to do with "you being able to download MP3s" and very little with "anyone can take your code".

 

[stingstang]

This judge should be taken out. Intellectual property is still property, and if software isn't intellectual property, then what is?

 

[phamhlam]

These codes wern't sold and didn't constitute of interstate commerce. A movie or music is interstate commerce and thus you can be charge with pirating. That is why it is a federal crime.

 

[Guest]

"The enormous profits the system yielded for Goldman depended on no one else having it," the judges wrote. "Because the HFT system was not designed to enter or pass in commerce, or to make something that does, Aleynikov’s theft of source code relating to that system was not an offense under the EEA."

this does not apply to any code eg MP3 dvd's ect.

 

[gg123]

Of course "intellectual property" is a fraud. At the beginning it was called "privileges" or "monopolies" etc, it is a creation of the State.

Indeed you can't own an idea or series of electrical signals 100110 etc. so there's no crime in downloading stuff from the Internet or trying to copy a recipe you've seen on TV.
However stealing a DVD is theft for the obvious reason that it is a scarce resource and that by doing so, the legitimate owner of the DVD will have no DVD left.

But the problem here is that this employee broke his contract.
I guess he had agreed not to make this knowledge/idea/code public and only to use it while working for Goldman Sachs.

So he has broken an agreement and Goldman Sachs has the right to demand reparation.

(Although some might that argue that Goldman Sachs does not deserve anymore money since it is actively participating in robbing and enslaving the taxpayers of this planet but... that was not the point I wanted to make)

 

[Zingam_Duo]

[citation][nom]stingstang[/nom]This judge should be taken out. Intellectual property is still property, and if software isn't intellectual property, then what is?[/citation]

My typings here are my intellectual property. If you read them you have stolen them. Now I'm gonna sue you into the stone ages!

 

[mcd023]

Maybe I'm stupid, but if I put the time and money to write code and somebody else uses it without my permission, I'd be royally ticked. If it isn't stealing because I'm not deprived of its use, let me sleep with your wife and then give her back. You're not deprived of her (not to say that wives are sex tools, just using hyperbole to make a point).

 

[mcd023]

[citation][nom]mcd023[/nom]Maybe I'm stupid, but if I put the time and money to write code and somebody else uses it without my permission, I'd be royally ticked. If it isn't stealing because I'm not deprived of its use, let me sleep with your wife and then give her back. You're not deprived of her (not to say that wives are sex tools, just using hyperbole to make a point).[/citation]
granted, your wife is also a physical object, but you get her back, so my argument still stands!

 

[jaber2]

So what other useless items can we steal?

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]jaber2[/nom]So what other useless items can we steal?[/citation]
This comment?

 

[wmalinowski]

It does not matter the code is sold or not. The code was to be used internal by GS (which would classify as private property ). This guy took the code without authorization by GS. That my definition of a thief. Off with the hands....

 

[v1ze]

[citation][nom]wmalinowski[/nom]It does not matter the code is sold or not. The code was to be used internal by GS (which would classify as private property ). This guy took the code without authorization by GS. That my definition of a thief. Off with the hands....[/citation]
Right but he was not guilty using the definition of theft in his conviction. That's the whole point of the article.....

 

[gzhang]

So mp3s are just a bunch of bits and bytes and are not properties either, and people can copy them for free?

Also, "The ruling also addresses an argument by the government which claims that code is considered physical property and covered under a 1988 amendment to the NSPA", so the judges "re-interpreted" (created) law to fit this case, in a sense judges have openly changed the law congress made!

 

[fuzznarf]

[citation][nom]mcd023[/nom]granted, your wife is also a physical object, but you get her back, so my argument still stands![/citation]

Then by your logic, what do books account for? Writing a book and writing a file in C++ (java, C#, etc..) is different?? Or are you saying that everyone should be legally allowed to just copy, i.e. steal, the latest nest selling novels also? If a book is a paper book vs ebook, are you saying suddenly the ebook is not 'real'??

00101011010101101100111010111101010111111010111. no different than the words in a book. The language that I write in is different, but still no less worthy of protection.

 

[eddieroolz]

As a software engineer in training I feel mixed about this. On one hand this ruling can prevent overzealous companies from accusing theft. But on other hand this means my work isn't going to be protected either.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]gg123[/nom]Of course "intellectual property" is a fraud. At the beginning it was called "privileges" or "monopolies" etc, it is a creation of the State.Indeed you can't own an idea or series of electrical signals 100110 etc. so there's no crime in downloading stuff from the Internet or trying to copy a recipe you've seen on TV.However stealing a DVD is theft for the obvious reason that it is a scarce resource and that by doing so, the legitimate owner of the DVD will have no DVD left.But the problem here is that this employee broke his contract.I guess he had agreed not to make this knowledge/idea/code public and only to use it while working for Goldman Sachs.So he has broken an agreement and Goldman Sachs has the right to demand reparation.(Although some might that argue that Goldman Sachs does not deserve anymore money since it is actively participating in robbing and enslaving the taxpayers of this planet but... that was not the point I wanted to make)[/citation]

Intellectual property is not a fraud. This is no different than music or books. If you copy someone else's term paper and turn it in as your own for a class, that's plagiarism and you can, and should, be expelled. No actual physical paper was stolen, but you misrepresented the ideas on that paper as your own.

What this employee did was accept payment for a company to create something, which he did. That something belongs to the company that paid for it. If an employer can not own what is created by people they hire to create for them, they will simply stop paying people to make things, which, in case you do not understand, means they stop hiring people.

This mentality of "I am entitled to use what anyone else has or comes up with" is one of the propblems our society and culture has today. If this person wanted to retain rights to the software he made, he should have come up with it using his own resources, not take money from someone else to make it.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]gzhang[/nom]So mp3s are just a bunch of bits and bytes and are not properties either, and people can copy them for free?Also, "The ruling also addresses an argument by the government which claims that code is considered physical property and covered under a 1988 amendment to the NSPA", so the judges "re-interpreted" (created) law to fit this case, in a sense judges have openly changed the law congress made![/citation]

Yeah that's one of the most dangerous parts of it. The courts have for years been more and more making law and that is blatantly unconstitutional. All they can do is rule whether or not a law is constitutional or not, they can not change the law.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]As a software engineer in training I feel mixed about this. On one hand this ruling can prevent overzealous companies from accusing theft. But on other hand this means my work isn't going to be protected either.[/citation]
Except in this case the company was not overzealous. He admits he took proprietary files, but claims he did so "accidentally". Ok, maybe it was accidental, but that shows incompetence on his part so should make him unemployable in the IT field now.

 

[amdfreak]

The judge is wrong. The code is someone's property !

 

[Guest]

Completely redicilous. While source code may not be a "phsyical object" you certainly can "own" source code. If you cannot own source code then authors of songs or books cannot "own" those either. I can write my source code into a book if I really wanted too and it would "exist" just the same as a book manuscript or sheet music.

I'm assuming the company at hand paid the guy to write this code for them. It belongs to them and he had no reason to make a backup copy of it wether he "used" it or not. Can I copy a DVD if I promise not to watch it?

The guy made unauthorized backups of material that he did not own. That is no different the downloading a song or a movie wether you "use" or "sell" them. The fact that nothing is "missing" from the Bank does not mean that something wasn't "taken".

The best argument that can be made is that he does not have a liscense to use the code in any way. The code, if copyrighted, is protected from unauthorized replication by others without the consent of the copyright owner. He has no practicle use for the code in any way and has no reason to have a copy of it.

These things need to be thought of more in the lines of "liscensing" then by actual physical property theft. If I prepare a demonstraiton and charge people to see it, anyone who watches without paying is "stealing" the work I have done. People do not "have" to watch my demonstraiton, they do not need to agree about the cost and can only watch if they want too.

If I am hired to write programs for a comany, then the company "owns" that work. No differently then if I hire a contractor to build an addition onto my house. That addition belongs to me and NOT the contractor. No one can "take" my addition without asking. If it were possible to even copyright the layout of an addition (it might be?) then no one could legally build the same addition that I have.

People need to stop being so linear in their thinking and realize that virtual theft is theft all the same as phsyical theft.