Code Isn't Property; Therefore it can't Be stolen

[Gh0sti]

During a court ruling of a man nameed Sergey Aleynikov while working at goldman sacks was acquitted with stealing code from the company but during his court ruling the judge decided code isnt property thus cant be stolen

The case hinged upon the definition of both property and economic espionage, and the court found that code, being an intangible, couldn't be property that's capable of being stolen within the definition of the statute -- affirming a state of affairs that's been in place since the British case of Oxford v Moss from 1979

Endgadget
So what does this mean for the future what do you guys think, now anyone can use anyones code?? The judge has asked Congress to be able to amend the law for the rest of the world to be able to do this

Does this in a sense of open pandora's box does this mean games are essential made of code and can be copied?? your thoughts

 

[WiiUBricker]

Judge is stupid. Compiled games are practically all machine code. Judge is probably a dirty pirate, lol.

 

[finkmac]

So, this means my Code, which I wrote, Isn't my property? By that standard, books aren't property, therefore they can't be stolen.

 

[Jamstruth]

Well...pirates are always arguing that piracy cannot be considered "stealing" because it copies the original instead of actually removing it. Possibly the judge is pointing out this in a situation where everyone agrees that the man is in the wrong?
So yeah... we're showing the double standard not the judge. As far as he's concerned this is a copyright violation (and the code probably hadn't been copyrighted yet) so it cannot be considered "stealing"

 

[Midna]

Theft involved depriving someone of their property. That is the legal definition. Of course copying code isn't theft.

It may be any number of other crimes, but it isn't theft.

 

[FAST6191]

An interesting ruling and potential piece of case law (I would be surprised if a lot of IP lawyers are not getting calls about now with an eye to doing things and later on more people are not lining calls and meetings of "interest groups") as to my reading it has potential to do a lot to damage software patents (both the industrial espionage and property part as both of those have fundamentals in common with patents) which is no bad thing from my perspective but various groups fight tooth and nail to keep it that way and increase powers. More than that though it has some interesting implications for straight up copyright but going on what I read previously on the matter it does not seem to have been tried as a copyright infringement and possibly trade secrets.

"The judge has asked Congress to be able to amend the law for the rest of the world to be able to do this"
How very amusing- people often joke about the US and especially US IP law riding roughshod over the rest of the world when it comes to legal matters but the parties concerned usually stop short of a tacit admission.

 

[notmeanymore]

brb uploading Half Life 3 source code

 

[Fishaman P]

So now Adobe can't sue us when we get a copy of the Adobe CS6 suite before it comes out!

 

[AlanJohn]

If someone has access to the code, doesn't that mean that the program is open-sourced?

 

[notmeanymore]

If someone has access to the code, doesn't that mean that the program is open-sourced?

No, sometimes closed source projects get code leaked by their developers or by accident by some retard.

 

[FAST6191]

"If someone has access to the code, doesn't that mean that the program is open-sourced?"

Not related at all but it got me wondering if this has further ramifications for decompilation (or indeed languages based upon an interpreter of some form) and other forms of previously potentially interesting reverse engineering.

 

[CyborGamer]

Even if it's not theft, it's still considered plagiarism, no? That in itself is still considered a crime wouldn't it?

 

[Kioku]

So, this means my Code, which I wrote, Isn't my property? By that standard, books aren't property, therefore they can't be stolen.

>> lol no. Just... no...

A book and code are two completely different things. One can be altered numerous times by numerous people.. Whereas the other is usually written by one person and copyrighted. [Note the bold kthx]

 

[the_randomizer]

So now Adobe can't sue us when we get a copy of the Adobe CS6 suite before it comes out!

My roflcopter goes soisoisoisoisoisoisoisoi.....


On a more serious note, won't this have a large negative impact for people who program code?

 

[FAST6191]

Mchief298 I can see where you are coming from and there is a kind of related piece of copyright stuff with the public domain books (the text might be but the typesetting and such does constitute a new work so scanning and releasing your nicely new typeset version of [insert chosen public domain work] could see me up in front of the beak) but I can not stand behind the logic for a moment.

 

[redfalcon]

Even if it's not theft, it's still considered plagiarism, no? That in itself is still considered a crime wouldn't it?

It's only plagiarism if you would re-release it under your name. It would be theft nonetheless.

 

[Gh0sti]

yep this court case definitively opened pandoras box on whats now considered legal

 

[The Milkman]

I half agree with this fact. I don't think code can be stolen because it can be replicated by different maners and its no real possession or item. However it can be copied and distributed without permission of the creator, which is pretty much piracy. Take it like this.
I can make an amazing new comic and copy right it, however if some one TAKES the comic without my permission, I can report it as stolen. But if someone buys a copy of it from me and then decides to scan it and distribute my comic for free, without my permission then he's pirated it. That's how I see it. Two totally different crimes that should have totally different punishments. If you steal it then you should be punished the standard way. If you pirate you should just have to buy the amount of copys you distributed, if you pirated a copy you should simply be required to buy it. Fair punishment for a victimless crime I say.

 

[Hadrian]

I don't think this will lead to anyone being able to copy anyone's code, it just means anyone who does copy code will be accused of something else other than theft, maybe plagiarism.

 

[Magsor]

Theft involved depriving someone of their property. That is the legal definition. Of course copying code isn't theft.

It may be any number of other crimes, but it isn't theft.

Wow! Those 7 words are the reason i don't take part in the piracy debate. If you cannot protect your code properly your just dumb and greedy.
Theft involved depriving someone of their property. End of debate.