Court Rules Computer Code Is Not "Property" and Can't be Stolen!

[stinger608]

Originally Posted by qubit

Finally!

A copy can be several things, but it cannot be theft, because the original is still there. Period. I'm glad that the courts are finally starting to get this terribly basic concept.

Thanks for posting this NT, you made my day.

Exactly what I got from this. Music, software, movies, applications, etc... that are downloadable content would fall into this category then? Taking it without paying for it still leaves the creator with the original. So taking downloadable content without paying for it is not stealing!

That basically means that someone can take the web site code from.........say.....TPU, create a carbon copy and it would not be considered theft due to TPU still being completely in tact and still working? And not depriving W1zzard from the code. Crazy

[qubit]

Originally Posted by stinger608

Exactly what I got from this. Music, software, movies, applications, etc... that are downloadable content would fall into this category then? Taking it without paying for it still leaves the creator with the original. So taking downloadable content without paying for it is not stealing!

That basically means that someone can take the web site code from.........say.....TPU, create a carbon copy and it would not be considered theft due to TPU still being completely in tact and still working? And not depriving W1zzard from the code. Crazy

Sure, that's why it's an infringement, becauase the creator of that song/movie/program code etc doesn't want you to have a copy for free. This is why I said it can be a lot of things, but not theft. Crucially, you can't even make a solid argument for financial losses. All you can really argue is the morality of the act. Yeah, like anyone cares about that, lol and the courts certainly won't grant any damages over a mere moral argument. The RIAA and the rest of their cronies know this, which is why they will moronically insist down to their dying breath that copying is "stealing" or "theft".

So no, getting a copy of some DLC off a torrent isn't stealing or theft at all.

[Yo_Wattup]

Seriously why is mailman a mod when all he does is troll. See first post of his in this thread, adds nothing to the thread, just pisses people off...

Reported btw, I believe that sort of posting is against the rules

[newtekie1]

He isn't a Mod.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Ill never have to buy software again

This sentence assumes that you are "buying software" in the first place, prior to this decision. You have never bought software for years now. You are merely buying a license to use that software. The license is the product, not the software per se.

[Yo_Wattup]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

He isn't a Mod.

Did he get demoted?

[cadaveca]

Originally Posted by Yo_Wattup

Did he get demoted?

Nope, news posters in pink and reviewers in orange are not mods.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by Yo_Wattup

Seriously why is mailman a mod when all he does is troll. See first post of his in this thread, adds nothing to the thread, just pisses people off...

Reported btw, I believe that sort of posting is against the rules

He is not a mod and how is stating an opinion on the topic at hand, trolling?

[Easy Rhino]

actually this is very very bad. now the powers that be can redefine the term stolen for the digital age and INCREASE the penalty to whatever they deem appropriate.

[stinger608]

Originally Posted by Yo_Wattup

Seriously why is mailman a mod when all he does is troll. See first post of his in this thread, adds nothing to the thread, just pisses people off...

Reported btw, I believe that sort of posting is against the rules

Soooooooo, what your statement is saying is not trolling??????? Hmmmm

Originally Posted by erocker

He is not a mod and how is stating an opinion on the topic at hand, trolling?

Exactly.

None the less, if someone copies anything, isn't that at the very least plagiarism at the very least?

[Vulpesveritas]

Originally Posted by stinger608

None the less, if someone copies anything, isn't that at the very least plagiarism at the very least?

If you're distributing it, then it's theft of market, if you're claiming you made it, then it's plagiarism, however if you do neither than it is merely a breach of copywrite, and a civil issue. So fines but no jail.

Well I'm fairly certain there are a number of people out there who will be happy to know they don't have to worry about going to jail because their kid decided to find a "free" mp3 player site and download a ton of music to impress their friends, along with viruses to clog their PC.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by Vulpesveritas

If you're distributing it, then it's theft of market, if you're claiming you made it, then it's plagiarism, however if you do neither than it is merely a breach of copywrite, and a civil issue. So fines but no jail.

Well I'm fairly certain there are a number of people out there who will be happy to know they don't have to worry about going to jail because their kid decided to find a "free" mp3 player site and download a ton of music to impress their friends, along with viruses to clog their PC.

you know, i was gonna troll but then i read your comment and had to add to it.

if downloading digital copies of games/movies/music can no longer be considered theft then imagine the boondoggle there. also imagine the immense amount of virus ridden files that will accompany people's downloads. most 0 day downloads already have trojans attached to them. the proliferation of malware will explode!

i mean, it would be really tough for an average user to find a clean copy of the movie or game they want. they will get so mad they will have no choice but to buy it. hilarious irony!

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Theft of market is the new "theft". Thats what they argue now. Anyway I just went to the RIAA website and found their statement on Copyright infringement which is what almost ALL their cases are based on.



Apparently the entire world is going to jail. Anyway my point is this ruling will have like zero effect on the MPAA/RIAA and their crusade IMO.

The first and largest issue here is if a consumer purchases a CD, they don't own the content but merely the right to use it as set forth in copyright and fair use laws.

Now lets say I buy a music cd, my kids get ahold of it and decide it makes a good frisbee, currently I would still be charged with copyright infringement if I, within my fair use rights downloaded a new copy off the internet, or borrowed to make a copy. I would be expected to provide a lawyer, be wrongfully imprisioned, submit to unwarranted search and seisure, and take the loss of income and damage to my reputation.

Second, the guilty blanket is one I have personally experianced on a youtube video that was removed as in the background at a public place music could be heard. I had to email a specific portion of the fair use law to tje studio agent and to the youtube complaint department to have it made availabe again. They spacificly infringed on my rights with an assumption of guilt.

[TheMailMan78]

What newtekie1 and I talked about is this has to do with the act of copying. Not copyright infringement. Its totally two different crimes. Dowling vs. United States already covered this 1985. All this court ruling brings is it applies to binary code now instead of phonorecords. The MPAA/RIAA will still be able to throw the book at you in court. Its not a hard concept to follow.

You guys have taken this ruling WAY out of context. This doesn't/will never allow you to violate copyrights via downloading illegally acquired/unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.

Originally Posted by Steevo

Second, the guilty blanket is one I have personally experianced on a youtube video that was removed as in the background at a public place music could be heard. I had to email a specific portion of the fair use law to tje studio agent and to the youtube complaint department to have it made availabe again. They spacificly infringed on my rights with an assumption of guilt.

First off you don't have a "right" to post on a privately owned website. Second you agreed to the NDA when uploading that video so any perceived "right" was waved then. Does it suck? Sure but you can always start SteevoTube.

[trickson]

0011001001000001111100000011111111110100001000001.

[Vulpesveritas]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

What newtekie1 and I talked about is this has to do with the act of copying. Not copyright infringement. Its totally two different crimes. Dowling vs. United States already covered this 1985. All this court ruling brings is it applies to binary code now instead of phonorecords. The MPAA/RIAA will still be able to throw the book at you in court. Its not a hard concept to follow.

You guys have taken this ruling WAY out of context. This doesn't/will never allow you to violate copyrights via downloading illegally acquired/unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.

Well I never read it as such, just that it's not theft and therefore not a felony, and means those parents who should really monitor what their kids do on the internet but don't, should hopefully not have to worry about being charged with a felony XD. Just a court case and excessive fine.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

First off you don't have a "right" to post on a privately owned website.

You do have a right to post on a privately owned website. That's why site owners/administrators also have the right to stop you from doing so. How the hell can someone have a right to stop you from doing "something" if you don't have the right to do that "something" in the first place?

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Second you agreed to the NDA when uploading that video so any perceived "right" was waved then. Does it suck? Sure but you can always start SteevoTube.

No rights are "waived" there, by agreeing all you did was accept that they also have the right to stop you from uploading something/deleting it. The typical terms and conditions of websites can be summarized thusly: you have the right to do A, B, C, but we also have the right to stop you from doing A, B, C, if you violate the others things we list down in the terms and conditions. What you're saying, wrongly, is that websites "gives you access" or "allows you to do something" and "we can disallow you or stop giving you access." Although some might argue the distinction is minor, it actually isn't.

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

First off you don't have a "right" to post on a privately owned website. Second you agreed to the NDA when uploading that video so any perceived "right" was waved then. Does it suck? Sure but you can always start SteevoTube.

I abide by their regulations and rules, however it wasn't youtube directly that had the video removed, in case you don't know. Google, youtube viacom.

Currently youtube is in the crosshairs of viacom to prevent any theft, and they have a court order to allow them to remove videos that might be infringing, and it is up to users to petition for their "innocence" in the matter.

This is a direct violation of our rights in the US, irregardless of what website, media, or content delivery method. What you are suggesting is we allow companies to treat us first as criminals, and customers with rights come second.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by Steevo

This is a direct violation of our rights in the US, irregardless of what website, media, or content delivery method. What you are suggesting is we allow companies to treat us first as criminals, and customers with rights come second.

"Suggesting"? More like "becoming reality" with CISPA in the works. CISPA is TMM's dream come true, since personal data can be stored and distributed in the name of "cybersecurity".

[trickson]

THe only thing the courts are talking about is the CODE, 01001100001111000011110000000011110101010101000000 11000001111, THis kind of stuff. Get over it. software , Music, Movies and other stuff is not going to change. It is still copyrighted!

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by entropy13

You do have a right to post on a privately owned website. That's why site owners/administrators also have the right to stop you from doing so. How the hell can someone have a right to stop you from doing "something" if you don't have the right to do that "something" in the first place?

No rights are "waived" there, by agreeing all you did was accept that they also have the right to stop you from uploading something/deleting it. The typical terms and conditions of websites can be summarized thusly: you have the right to do A, B, C, but we also have the right to stop you from doing A, B, C, if you violate the others things we list down in the terms and conditions. What you're saying, wrongly, is that websites "gives you access" or "allows you to do something" and "we can disallow you or stop giving you access." Although some might argue the distinction is minor, it actually isn't.

A "right" is something guaranteed to you by a Constitution or a bill of rights. Show me the amendment where Steevo or anyone has a "right" to post anything on a privately own website. What he agreed to is he can post anything Youtube deems acceptable and at anytime can remove if they feel like it. Its like planting a tree in someones yard. They don't mind but reserve the right to dig it up at anytime for any reason...why? Because they own the yard.

Originally Posted by Steevo

I abide by their regulations and rules, however it wasn't youtube directly that had the video removed, in case you don't know. Google, youtube viacom.

Currently youtube is in the crosshairs of viacom to prevent any theft, and they have a court order to allow them to remove videos that might be infringing, and it is up to users to petition for their "innocence" in the matter.

This is a direct violation of our rights in the US, irregardless of what website, media, or content delivery method. What you are suggesting is we allow companies to treat us first as criminals, and customers with rights come second.

Right to what? Post a video on a website that might be illegal? You expect Youtube to risk getting fined for copyright infringement because it may inconvenient you? No. Ill just take your video down until you can prove to me that I WILL NOT be fined. Remember its not your head on the block for posting copyrighted material in this case. Its youtubes if they willingly distribute something that violates copyright law KNOWINGLY. Want something better? Start Steevotube.

[Steevo]

We are already past that and we are beating this dead horse here, now if you want to join in, you can, otherwise go away, you are distracting us.

[theoneandonlymrk]

Originally Posted by cadaveca

Nope, news posters in pink and reviewers in orange are not mods.

that avatar ya new rig Dave nice

OT imho i think if you understand that in essence were just buying a licence EVERY time we buy a piece of software to use and that this is the systeM They the software distributers dreamed up and put in place ,that they have allready understood that code is just code (which it is there may be five ways to ask ""Whats for tea"but the meaning each time is the same, and code is just another language, its the ART, the tale, the experience that is imho the sold item the patent and licenceable item not the code.

I t appears to me that this had allready been foreseen and sidestepped by the devs as its still just as ilegal as it was to download and play any game without a Licence and the only difference is that unfortunately devs cant send people to jail as easy or rape them of as much compo

Again imho any game dev can side step piracy by makeing their game way better in original licenced form then a pirated experience , and unfortunately Drm dosnt make the bought piece of software anymore enticeing, pls dont rant at me, i dont practice or promote ilegal nonesense and have evolved as many do into a reasonable consumer who spends too much on games and just wants a fair deal these days

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

A "right" is something guaranteed to you by a Constitution or a bill of rights. Show me the amendment where Steevo or anyone has a "right" to post anything on a privately own website. What he agreed to is he can post anything Youtube deems acceptable and at anytime can remove if they feel like it. Its like planting a tree in someones yard. They don't mind but reserve the right to dig it up at anytime for any reason...why? Because they own the lawn.

Right to what? Post a video on a website that might be illegal? You expect Youtube to risk getting fined for copyright infringement because it may inconvenient you? No. Ill just take your video down until you can prove to me that I WILL NOT be fined. Remember its not you head on the block for posting copyrighted material. Its youtubes if they willing distribute something that violates copyright law KNOWINGLY. Want something better? Start Steevotube.

You have a disturbing idea about laws and rights.


We can do anything, but if it is illegal (a law determines if your act is punishable) you do not have the "right" or permission to perform said act.

Laws are meant to define and put restraints on what we CAN do. If there is not a law or there is no conflict with the law we have the RIGHT to do it.


You appear to have the incorrect idea that we can't do anything unless the law allows it.



That aside, again, it wasn't youtube that had the video removed, as they don't patrol for infringement. It was the copyright holder who asserted my video was in violation of their rights, they failed to know my rights before forcing youtube to remove the video clip. I was forced to assert my rights of fair use to allow the content to stay.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with youtube other than they were the content delivery and storage, and everything to do with my fair use rights. If the video they had removed had truly been in violation they could have sued me for copyright infringement, however they didn't. They are just using scare tactics and a blanket method to try and control the masses.

[trickson]

Originally Posted by Steevo

We are already past that and we are beating this dead horse here, now if you want to join in, you can, otherwise go away, you are distracting us.

DID you even read the article? http://gizmodo.com/5901263/court-rul...-computer-code

What does this have to do with youtube? This is not about copyright infringement this is about code (Computer Code). This affects programers more than any thing. Not the use of programs or videos or movies or music. As that is protected under copyrights. Youtube can pull videos that cross this line as well as music that crosses this line. I think you need to stop reading into the courts ruling and read the courts ruling.