Code not physical property | Hacker News Reader

Code not physical property

wired.com

So if our code isn't a physical thing and can't be stolen, can we say the same thing for other digital files, like movies and music?

Yes, we already do. AFAIK, the number of people who have been prosecuted for theft of a digital movie file (as opposed to violations of copyright law) is zero.

I've definitely read things, and maybe they were just statements from the RIAA/MPAA, that said copyright infringement was exactly the same thing as theft. Or am I making that up?

If such an assertion were true, it would be terrible for their business. Theft of a $20 object is not generally punishable by a fine of $100,000.

They're certainly happy to describe it that way in PR moves and the like, but they've only ever really sued people over copyright infringement, or pursued criminal copyright infringement charges.

Actually charging a copyright infringer with criminal theft of property, as opposed to just colloquially calling such infringement theft, is a fairly novel legal tactic.

This is an interesting question. I wish this question was put forth to the Supreme Court.

Of course. This is obvious to anyone who isn't indoctrinated by copyright industry doublespeak.

Copyright law is a restriction on the copying of information. Theft has no place in copyright law and never has. It is merely a perjorative term used to confuse the issue.

Edit: Apologies for my angry tone. As you can tell, this really bothers me.

Can we? We have been for ages! For more than a decade now! It's an argument that's been repeated over and over and over again.

Interesting that they did agree that digital money (wire transfers) is property. So one set of bits is theft but another set isn't.

Which is particularly ridiculous, as _money_ is not physical at all. Even physical money -- bills and coins -- is just information, just as when you write down your phone number on a piece of paper.

Well no. Physical money is scarce information.

True, but money is not limited to the physical form.

FTA, “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 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in its opinion (.pdf).

Theft of digital money deprives.

Now that is an interesting monkey in the wrench. A 2nd Circuit opinion that allows that

"He (the defendant) argues that:

[1] the source code was not a “stolen” “good” within the meaning of the NSPA, and

[2] the source code was not “related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce” within the meaning of the EEA.

The judgement of the district court is reversed."

Which narrows the opinion to the definitions in the NSPA and EEA but I think some creative lawyering should be able to get this into things like code to compress images for example.

It will be interesting to see if anyone can use this as leverage in the ongoing copyright/patent/IP discussion.

It would be lovely to read an IP lawyer's opinion on this story's implications.

Does this mean that a programmer working at a firm can walk away with code without breaking any laws?

No. You will probably be breaking some laws, but not laws against theft.

I like that he got off, but does that means for the hackers that took googles code. What happens to all patents on software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com