Don wrote:[I am not necessary responding just to you. I am responding to the thread subject and the concept that software cannot be stolen. I completely disagree with that.
A usb stick with software can be stolen. Illegal copying of software is something else and usually does not fall under the legal definition of "theft", although there might be jurisdictions in this world that see it differently.
Theft usually requires that the rightful owner loses control over the "object" that was stolen. If your money disappears from your bank account, you do not longer have the money. The supreme court of my own country recently confirmed that taking away someone's virtual amulet within a virtual world (but not within the rules of that virtual world... effectively the victim's account had been hacked) falls under theft: the rightful owner had lost control of the virtual object.
Saying that illegal copying of software is not "theft" has little to do with rationalisation of illegal copying. Murder ("stealing someone's life") does not fall under the legal definition of "theft", but obviously murder is a very severe crime.
wgarvin wrote:Ignore Don, he is completely wrong about the word "theft".
The word "theft" has, for a long time, meant taking something which is not yours, with intent to deprive the owner of it. In some jurisdictions there are legal definitions of the word "theft". In others, it is used as a convenience label for a group of more specific crimes (larceny, burglary, conversion, etc.) Intent to deprive the owner of the taken property is an important element; accidentally taking someone else's property without intent to deprive them of it, is not theft. Nor is making a copy of some data, unless you intend to destroy the original, or in some similar way, deprive the owner of that data. It might be illegal, but it's not theft!
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Fraud is fraud. Copying someone else's data without their consent is probably criminal in most situations (like the guy who copied his employer's proprietary software code; of course he violated a bunch of laws by doing that) but it isn't "theft" or "stealing", because if you still have your property then obviously it wasn't stolen from you.
Code theft definitely has intent to deprive the owner of money and you are really mincing words to make this meaningless distinction. Did you make up the bold part or do you have a reference? I looked at some definition and never saw that in any of them.
However debating the technical definition of a word doesn't change what it is, only what you call it.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
Don wrote:[I am not necessary responding just to you. I am responding to the thread subject and the concept that software cannot be stolen. I completely disagree with that.
A usb stick with software can be stolen. Illegal copying of software is something else and usually does not fall under the legal definition of "theft", although there might be jurisdictions in this world that see it differently.
Theft usually requires that the rightful owner loses control over the "object" that was stolen. If your money disappears from your bank account, you do not longer have the money. The supreme court of my own country recently confirmed that taking away someone's virtual amulet within a virtual world (but not within the rules of that virtual world... effectively the victim's account had been hacked) falls under theft: the rightful owner had lost control of the virtual object.
Saying that illegal copying of software is not "theft" has little to do with rationalisation of illegal copying. Murder ("stealing someone's life") does not fall under the legal definition of "theft", but obviously murder is a very severe crime.
I agree with you.
I'm not so much interested in the legal definition, that changes with the wind. The appeals court ruling is new and may or may not stick and it's just nomenclature, it doesn't change anything but what it's called.
Murder is theft too but deserves to have it's own special category legally as a crime. In fact, it DOES have it's own special category in almost every culture - going at least as far back as the ancient Israelite's. A little tiny section of their law book had 10 very general rules and Murder was separate from Theft.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
....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."
So, if the software was meant as commerce that is different from software that is meant not for commerce.
In this case, the software was not for sale, but it is clear others could use the stolen product for competitive purposes.
That implies stealing software that is free is ok, but stealing software that is meant for commerce is not.
....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."
So, if the software was meant as commerce that is different from software that is meant not for commerce.
In this case, the software was not for sale, but it is clear others could use the stolen product for competitive purposes.
That implies stealing software that is free is ok, but stealing software that is meant for commerce is not.
Code meant to be free is hard to steal. Unless, you consider taking the free stuff and then selling it. Under certain conditions that is lawful, but under other conditions it is not.
Code meant for commerce has stricter rules. You take it and it is theft. You use it for commerce for you and it is theft. You use it as the base of your "10 minutes" of work for your commercial product and it is theft.
