
Stealing Computer Code Isn't Theft, Court Rules - boopsie
http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Policy-Watch/Stealing-Computer-Code-Isn-t-Theft-Court-Rules/ba-p/2814
======
Tuna-Fish
That's right, it isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. There is a
difference.

------
gte910h
"Taking a copy of computer code isn't theft by that 1996 law because it's not
goods" is what they ruled.

------
mrsteveman1
Couldn't the federal government amend that law (the one cited as covering
physical goods, etc) to include computer code?

~~~
Retric
Sure, but they can't make past actions a crime only future ones.

------
jtokoph
Could you convince the court that an MP3 file is just computer code? And
downloading an MP3 file is not theft?

~~~
fluorescentLAMP
Conversely, if you comment digital goods into software, is it still "computer
code"?

------
ldayley
Curious; would it have been theft if the code had been copyrighted?

~~~
tedivm
All creative works, including code, are protected by copyright the moment they
are created. The protections of copyrighting are limited though, and at the
time he was caught Mr. Aleynikov had not done anything other than copy the
code. There was no distribution to other parties and no sale of the code,
which meant there were limited damages. In other words, if they went after
just copyright then there was no real difference between this guy stealing a
font or stealing the software itself- the punishment would have been minimal
at best. Because of this the focus was placed on trade secrets, and of course
that failed to work due to the reasons the article addressed.

------
billpatrianakos
I just love the title. It basically amounts to "stealing isn't theft". But
anyway, this is a toughie. I'm not sure if that was a good decision. The law
may not see it as theft but realistically, it seems like it to me. I agree
about the part of the ruling that says that it isn't considered theft because
it was never sold but I'd ask if it was used. They use the example of the
formula for Coca-Cola. Well, if I stole it and even made it publicly available
but no one actually used it then that's not theft though in reality it'd be a
scary prospect if I owned Coke as I'm sure someone would use that recipe.

Putting the law aside for a moment, doesn't it make sense that simply
obtaining source code without permission is unethical but shouldn't be illegal
so long as its never used without permission? The funny thing about code is
that it falls into the area of ideas more than products but at the same time
once it's used it does become property in a way. It's a tool but there are a
lot of different ways to create any given tool as far as code is concerned.

It's like language. You can't own words but you can definitely steal the ideas
conveyed by words from someone else and that shouldn't be okay. It's like
writing books. Two people can write the same story using different words/word
combinations and one couldn't say the other plagiarized as its not like two
people never had the same idea before. But in cases like this, you just know
it when you see it and I don't know if the law will ever be able to adequately
deal with these kinds of situations because of the nature of them.

~~~
angersock
_"It's like language. You can't own words but you can definitely steal the
ideas conveyed by words from someone else and that shouldn't be okay. "_

Why's that a bad thing? If the idea is lifted wholesale, it's usually easy to
see where it came from, and if it is used as a basis for remixing/tweaking,
value has been added.

In either event, the world is a richer place. What's wrong with sharing?

~~~
billpatrianakos
It's not a bad thing at all. I was hoping to convey your point about being
able to tell where ideas come from but maybe I didn't so well.

Its one thing to steal an idea, use it as-is, remix it, whatever. That's fine.
What's wrong is taking an idea and implementing it in a completely identical
way. Like if someone took the source for MS Office, compiled it and just
rebranded it then that's obvious theft. Of course the idea of a desktop
publishing suite isn't something that can be stolen. There's a million ways to
clone MS Office as far as the source is concerned so it's not theft so long as
your implementation is unique to you. That's what I was getting at here. And
the other thing is that I don't know if any law really could cover the kind of
situation the article is about. It's just one of those things that's easy to
spot when it's presented but hard to codify and describe.

