Hacker News Reader

Comment by tzs | Hacker News Reader

They may be good at parsing the syntax of legal text, but in my experience software people are worse than "typical" people at understanding the meaning. My hypothesis is that programming gets them used to thinking about things in absolute terms, and they cannot deal with the fuzziness inherent in law.

View on HN

This is partially because developers have a cultural quirk where they believe that, e.g., "file sharing is not theft"/"manipulating a URL can't be a crime"/"laws about disclosing protected information invariably contain a public policy exception which comports to the temperament of the dev community" are axiomatic and thereby create an internally consistent legal system which fails to falsify those axioms but also fails to meaningfully resemble the legal system we actually operate in. This results in developers sincerely believe things like "Your Bitcoins are unprotected by the legal system because nobody can steal a number", which is a proposition that is absurd to the legal system as "JavaScript is not a programming language" is to a programmer.

developers have a cultural quirk where they believe that, e.g., "file sharing is not theft"

Yeah. Thankfully, the SCOTUS shares our cultural quirk, as Dowling v. United States showed.

This was a ruling in 1985 based on physical theft laws being applied to copyright. <s>It also never made it to the Supreme Court.</s> (edited -- sorry misread this part)

Since then, many other laws have been passed, and it's likely that SCOTUS would apply those rather than using this case as a precedent. They didn't make a sweeping judgement about the meaning of copyright -- only declared that a laws about theft did not apply to copyright. Specific Copyright laws passed after 1985 would probably still apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com