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

[Kreij]

Originally Posted by Steevo

We are already past that and we are beating this dead horse

Unfortunately the US court systems and patent offices were wholly unprepared for the onslaught of digital litigation as the laws in existance were not sufficient to cover this type of media.

Until they get something in place that covers all of the things that would be considered nebulous in the current laws, I feel that the poor dead horse is going to be pummeled into oblivion in discussions such as these.

[trickson]

Originally Posted by Kreij

Unfortunately the US court systems and patent offices were wholly unprepared for the onslaught of digital litigation as the laws in existance were not sufficient to cover this type of media.

Until they get something in place that covers all of the things that would be considered nebulous in the current laws, I feel that the poor dead horse is going to be pummeled into oblivion in discussions such as these.

Horse hamburger with pink slime! MMMMMMM so good!

[Vulpesveritas]

You know it is funny that in the United States of America's you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Sad things don't seem to work that way anymor and that companies value profits over ethics and aiding humanity as a whole.
And while I know a business is a business, it is still run by men, although the illusion of power corrupts, and I can't say with any level of certainty that had I grown up as they had, and achieved such as level of financial success that I would act differently.
Which is one of the main issues with the copyright and patent system, while it does cause people to make new things and pay those who create, it has become such a system that rewards greed and reduces quality, pushing for profits instead of simply for the sake of others, innovation, and creativity.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

A "right" is something guaranteed to you by a Constitution or a bill of rights.

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Show me the amendment where Steevo or anyone has a "right" to post anything on a privately own website.

Show me the amendment where Steevo or anyone has no "right" to post anything on a privately owned website.

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

What he agreed to is he can post anything Youtube deems acceptable and at anytime can remove if they feel like it.

So you're insisting that that's what it actually means..?

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

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.

Well you still have the right to plant the tree in someone's yard, so I don't see how it connects to the youtube issue.

If it's a fruit-bearing plant though, laws typically gives the owner of the land the right to the fruits. Sometimes though there are laws that specify a 50/50 sharing, especially if the one that planted it is the one that maintains the tree, but doesn't own the land.


Anyway, I guess the crux of the code issue is that unlike other things that uses a language, like literature, programming is "too standardized" so to speak, and then of course (and more importantly) there's also the issue about the form the computer code exists in.

[Kreij]

The analogies are awful lol

No, you do not have the right to plant a tree in my yard. You don't even have the right to enter my yard if I post a "no tresspassing" sign and I have the right to confront you at gunpoint if I feel the situation requires it (percieved threat). If you get physical becuase you are mad I won't let you plant a tree I have the right to shoot you (WI's castle doctrine law).

That being said, if you want to come plant trees in my yard it's okay with me. I'll even supply the beer.

[Steevo]

If we were to liken this to planting a tree, it would be like us being invited to plant trees in a privately owned area, by the owner. We could plant any type of tree we wanted. However there are certain trees that are fully and wholly owned by numerous companies, and while we can use parts of the tree, we cannot use or plant the whole tree.


This company new is following us around and removing our trees, uninvited by the landowner, as they bear too much semblance to their trees, and it is up to us to prove they do not.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Steevo

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.

You have a right to do whatever you want with YOUR OWN PROPERTY. Youtube is not your property. Youtube is responsible for whatever video you upload that might violate copyright once they are informed it is in violation. If the owner of a song came along and said "Steevo is using our music illegally" then Youtube has to take it down. You never had a "right" to put it there to begin with and Youtube has every right to take it down to keep from getting sued. Would you rather Youtube keep it up and in case you were wrong take the full blame for illegally distributing copyrighted material? That doesn't make any sense man. You would do the EXACT SAME THING if you were in Youtubes shoes.

Now you may have had a legitimate use for the music but Youtube has an obligation to protect itself in case you didn't. So yes. You have no rights when it comes to someone else's privet property.

On a side note I'm impressed with you Steevo! You have managed to keep the discussion civil! lol Normally you lose your temper. Kudos!

[trickson]

Originally Posted by Steevo

If we were to liken this to planting a tree, it would be like us being invited to plant trees in a privately owned area, by the owner. We could plant any type of tree we wanted. However there are certain trees that are fully and wholly owned by numerous companies, and while we can use parts of the tree, we cannot use or plant the whole tree.


This company new is following us around and removing our trees, uninvited by the landowner, as they bear too much semblance to their trees, and it is up to us to prove they do not.

Well this is not trees, This is about code. Code is not intellectual property, It i written and can not be stolen. I think they got blind sided. If they would have said plagiarized then it might have been held up as intellectual property. But they went down a different path with it and this is what the court ruled on. Code is Code. every thing I just typed is coded. And there for can not be viewed as stolen or copyrighted material.

[Kreij]

Originally Posted by Steevo

uninvited by the landowner

If someone is removing YT videos (and it's not YT) then one would have to assume they were invited (given the ability) by YT to do so, no?

[trickson]

Originally Posted by Steevo

If we were to liken this to planting a tree, it would be like us being invited to plant trees in a privately owned area, by the owner. We could plant any type of tree we wanted. However there are certain trees that are fully and wholly owned by numerous companies, and while we can use parts of the tree, we cannot use or plant the whole tree.


This company new is following us around and removing our trees, uninvited by the landowner, as they bear too much semblance to their trees, and it is up to us to prove they do not.

There is a way around this. Build your own fence on your own property and plant your trees there. Or in this case your own video upload site. See that would fix your problem.

[newtekie1]

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.

In a private website you have no rights, period. The word you are looking for is privilege, you have the privilege of posting on their website. Just like you have the privilege of posting here on TPU. At any time, your privileges can be revoked and you can be stopped from posting completely. This applies here, youtube, or any other website that you don't personally own. If you don't think that is true, ask any one of the poeple that have been banned from posting on this site. A right can't be taken away in this manner, it is always there. People need to learn the difference between a right and privilege.

What you do have is the right to create your own site and post all the content you want to it. That is your right, it is not a right to post freely on other's websites. You also have the right to control content of your own website however you see fit. If you don't like comments or content posted to it, you have the right to delete it, just like the owners of youtube and TPU have the right to delete anything posted to their sites. You do not have to first prove the content is illegal, you don't have to ask the content owner's permission. It is your right to delete content from your website for whatever reason you feel.

So if you want to complain about rights, learn what your rights actually are, learn the different between a privlege and a right and where each one applies, then create your own site where you actually do have rights.

Originally Posted by entropy13

Well you still have the right to plant the tree in someone's yard, so I don't see how it connects to the youtube issue.

Actually, no you don't. I can kick you off my property before or even after you plant the tree, and your tree is gone. I can prevent your from even coming on my property at any time. And after I tell you to stay off my property, if you come back, I can have you arrested, in some places I can even shoot your ass if you step foot on my property after being told not to. And legally, if you do plant a tree on someone elses property, the tree becomes the property of the property owner. There are some loopholes where if the property isn't being maintained and you start maintaining it you do have certain rights to claim partial ownership of the property, or if you didn't know it wasn't your property and the real owner didn't stop you right away you can have some rights to the tree. However, those don't really apply here, youtube is maintaining their site, and you know that they own the site.

Originally Posted by Kreij

If someone is removing YT videos (and it's not YT) then one would have to assume they were invited (given the ability) by YT to do so, no?

Just like you and the other mods here delete posts here on TPU even though you don't own the site. 3rd parties can be given the right to manage content. You are given permission to manage content for W1z on behalf of W1z.

[Kreij]

Originally Posted by trickson

This is about code. Code is not intellectual property

Code is definitely intellectial property (it is ethereal (a product of imagination) but can be expressed on a medium), it's just that copying it does not fit the traditional definition of stolen (removed from possession of original owner) which is what the court ruled on.

So is anyone coming over to plant trees? I have a bobcat we can use.

[trickson]

Originally Posted by Kreij

Code is definitely intellectual property (it is ethereal (a product of imagination) but can be expressed on a medium), it's just that copying it does not fit the traditional definition of stolen (removed from possession of original owner) which is what the court ruled on.

So is anyone coming over to plant trees? I have a bobcat we can use.

Well not all code is intellectual property. Like for instance every time I hit the key to make the letters I am typing are not intellectual property. Every letter has a "code" for that key ( Right?) so how can a letter be held as intellectual property? And how can it be perceived as stolen? But yes CODE a written program is intellectual property protected under copyright laws. So the court ruled that the transfer from one medium to another is not stolen! So one could take a program written on a floppy disk and transfer it to a CD and it is not stolen.

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by Kreij

Code is definitely intellectial property (it is ethereal (a product of imagination) but can be expressed on a medium), it's just that copying it does not fit the traditional definition of stolen (removed from possession of original owner) which is what the court ruled on.

So is anyone coming over to plant trees? I have a bobcat we can use.

I need to make a trip to the nursery on piccadilly, I killed our smoke tree, by accident of course, and am going to replace it with a peach, or pear tree. If have to water and prune them I might as well get benefit from them.

Going tomorrow.


I use one of our Case skid steers from work, get to use it when I need it. And sometimes at work when I don't want to.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by Kreij

No, you do not have the right to plant a tree in my yard. You don't even have the right to enter my yard if I post a "no tresspassing" sign and I have the right to confront you at gunpoint if I feel the situation requires it (percieved threat). If you get physical becuase you are mad I won't let you plant a tree I have the right to shoot you (WI's castle doctrine law).

Anyone has the right to plant a tree in your yard. It just so happens you can also enforce your own rights as property owner and disallow people from doing so, but that doesn't mean that preventing people from planting a tree in your yard automatically means they do not have the "right." In the case you presented, what happens is that your right to stop people from entering your property is in a "superior" position over someone planting a tree on your yard. But once again, that doesn't automatically mean that someone has NO right simply because you have the right to prevent that someone from planting a tree on your yard.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

I can kick you off my property before or even after you plant the tree, and your tree is gone.

Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

I can prevent your from even coming on my property at any time.

Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

And after I tell you to stay off my property, if you come back, I can have you arrested, in some places I can even shoot your ass if you step foot on my property after being told not to.

Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard. You are not depriving someone of his right to plant a tree on your yard. Rather you are enforcing your own right over your own property instead. You are preventing someone from using his right, but you are not depriving him of that right, and following that logical reasoning even further, that doesn't mean that someone suddenly has no right to do so. Preventing something from happening doesn't mean that something would no longer exist.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

However, those don't really apply here, youtube is maintaining their site, and you know that they own the site.

They own the site but youtube does not exclusively maintain their site.

[Kreij]

Lol ... I agree trickson. What I actually meant when I said "code" was ..
"A collection of bits varying in value between one and zero which when combined in a specific manner perform a particular function or display a particular visual representation upon a medium which is comaptible with the order and combinations of said bits."

Now don't "steal" my above line of codes.

[trickson]

Originally Posted by Kreij

Lol ... I agree trickson. What I actually meant when I said "code" was ..
"A collection of bits varying in value between one and zero which when combined in a specific manner perform a particular function or display a particular visual representation upon a medium which is comaptible with the order and combinations of said bits."

Now don't "steal" my above line of codes.

11100001110101111000001101011110010100011100110011 00000001111111

[radusorin]

>out of popcorn<

Originally Posted by entropy13

Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.

I think you mean the right to plant a tree period. But not the right to do something with my property.

After all if that is my property doing something on it or whit it, he needs to have my approval. After all that is the difference between my yard and no one yard or a public yard ... (even public yard was it own set of rules to be use but that is not the point here).

[Kreij]

Originally Posted by Steevo

I need to make a trip to the nursery on piccadilly, I killed our smoke tree, by accident of course, and am going to replace it with a peach, or pear tree.

You should get another smoke tree too. When ours died for some unknown reason I planted another. They are quite the beautiful tree and I would like to plant a row of them on our property somewhere. When viewed from a distance at the right time of year, they indeed give you the impression they are surrounded by smoke.

Originally Posted by entropy13

Anyone has the right to plant a tree in your yard. It just so happens you can also enforce your own rights as property owner and disallow people from doing so, but that doesn't mean that preventing people from planting a tree in your yard automatically means they do not have the "right." In the case you presented, what happens is that your right to stop people from entering your property is in a "superior" position over someone planting a tree on your yard. But once again, that doesn't automatically mean that someone has NO right simply because you have the right to prevent that someone from planting a tree on your yard.

This is just arguing semantics. Of course there are superceeding laws as it would impossible (and absurd to attempt) to write laws for any action someone could imagine.
When you come over to plant a tree in my yard you must perform two actions.
1) Enter my yard.
2) Plant a tree.
By the fact your first action violates a law you have no right to perform the second action.
Most parks are considered municipally owned, public property, but you have no right to dig a hole and plant a tree there either, even though your taxes are used to maintain it.

But hey, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. So this is just interesting discussion here on my fave forum.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by entropy13

Anyone has the right to plant a tree in your yard. It just so happens you can also enforce your own rights as property owner and disallow people from doing so, but that doesn't mean that preventing people from planting a tree in your yard automatically means they do not have the "right." In the case you presented, what happens is that your right to stop people from entering your property is in a "superior" position over someone planting a tree on your yard. But once again, that doesn't automatically mean that someone has NO right simply because you have the right to prevent that someone from planting a tree on your yard.

Look up what a right is, because I don't think it means what you think it means. If planting a tree on someone else property was a right, you could do it even if the property owner didn't want you to. Planting a tree on your own property is a right, because no one can stop you, planting a tree on my property is not a right because someone(me) can stop you.

Originally Posted by entropy13

Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.

Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.

And exactly how will they be planting a tree on my property if they can't get on it? Explain that to me?

So I have effectively stopped them from planting a tree on my yard, so it isn't a right.

Originally Posted by entropy13

Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard. You are not depriving someone of his right to plant a tree on your yard. Rather you are enforcing your own right over your own property instead. You are preventing someone from using his right, but you are not depriving him of that right, and following that logical reasoning even further, that doesn't mean that someone suddenly has no right to do so. Preventing something from happening doesn't mean that something would no longer exist.

So they will be using magic then to get on my property to plant this tree?

Originally Posted by entropy13

They own the site but youtube does not exclusively maintain their site.

You point? They ensure the site is maintained. I own a large plot of land, I don't go out and mow it myself every week, I have a service that does that for me that doesn't mean I forfeit my rights over the property.

[Benetanegia]

So can I download a tree or not?

[trickson]

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

So can I download a tree or not?

Yes just do not plant it on my network.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Look up what a right is, because I don't think it means what you think it means. If planting a tree on someone else property was a right, you could do it even if the property owner didn't want you to. Planting a tree on your own property is a right, because no one can stop you, planting a tree on my property is not a right because someone(me) can stop you.

Why don't YOU look up what a right is? Are you seriously suggesting that you can only have a right if "no one can stop you"? I have the right to life, but someone can actually stop me from living, for very obvious reasons, and because someone "can stop" me in exercising that right, my right to life is actually not a right at all?

Originally Posted by newtekie1

And exactly how will they be planting a tree on my property if they can't get on it? Explain that to me?

Having a right doesn't necessarily mean you can always exercise it, as I have already stated in my earlier posts. Your prevention of the exercise of that right is merely through your own exercise of your own rights, and not because you "removed" the right to plant a tree, or the right does not exist.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

So I have effectively stopped them from planting a tree on my yard, so it isn't a right.

So I have effectively stopped some person from living, therefore living isn't a right.

And technically speaking, you can say that you have "deprived" someone of his specific right, but you cannot say he never had that specific right to do so in the first place, or that it isn't a right to begin with.

Although "depriving" someone of his right is also typically through illegal or unlawful practices (as killing someone is typically that; unless during a war, and both are combatants, for example)... That's why instead of using that term, in your case, you just enforced your own right, which leads to the inability of the other person's enforcement of his right.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

You point? They ensure the site is maintained. I own a large plot of land, I don't go out and mow it myself every week, I have a service that does that for me that doesn't mean I forfeit my rights over the property.

Which is YOUR case. Considering that Universal can delete videos even though there is no infringing content makes Youtube actually different to the situation you presented. And we should really stop with this very bad analogy that TMM made up. Real Property Laws are quite well-defined, and to be honest can be considered in existence ever since civilization began. Unlike Intellectual Property which are just recent developments, and quite obviously unable to match technological progress.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by entropy13

Why don't YOU look up what a right is? Are you seriously suggesting that you can only have a right if "no one can stop you"? I have the right to life, but someone can actually stop me from living, for very obvious reasons, and because someone "can stop" me in exercising that right, my right to life is actually not a right at all?

The difference is that if I kill you, stopping your right to live, I'd be violating your right, and I would be in the wrong(that is why I'd go to jail). If I stop you from planting a tree on my property I would not be violating your right, and I wouldn't be in the wrong(that is why I wouldn't go to jail). See the difference?

If stopping the action is wrong, the action is a right.
If stopping the action isn't wrong, the action isn't a right.
It isn't really that hard of a concept to understand.

Originally Posted by entropy13

Having a right doesn't necessarily mean you can always exercise it, as I have already stated in my earlier posts. Your prevention of the exercise of that right is merely through your own exercise of your own rights, and not because you "removed" the right to plant a tree, or the right does not exist.

Actually, yes, by definition a right is something that can always be exercised. Again, I urge you to look it up. However, rights can be violated as I explained above, they can also be forfeited(for example, criminals that have been found guilty forfeit certain rights).

Originally Posted by entropy13

So I have effectively stopped some person from living, therefore living isn't a right.

No, therefor you have violated the persons right. I'm not violating your rights by preventing you from planting a tree on my property, because planting a tree on my property isn't a right.

Originally Posted by entropy13

And technically speaking, you can say that you have "deprived" someone of his specific right, but you cannot say he never had that specific right to do so in the first place, or that it isn't a right to begin with.

Although "depriving" someone of his right is also typically through illegal or unlawful practices (as killing someone is typically that; unless during a war, and both are combatants, for example)... That's why instead of using that term, in your case, you just enforced your own right, which leads to the inability of the other person's enforcement of his right.

Actually, yes you can say that something isn't a right to begin with. To begin with, nothing is a right that violates the rights of someone else. That is a basic concept of rights. That is why generally shooting someone in the face is wrong, because you are violating someone else's right. If planting a tree on my property was a right, me stopping you would be illegal.

Originally Posted by entropy13

Which is YOUR case. Considering that Universal can delete videos even though there is no infringing content makes Youtube actually different to the situation you presented. And we should really stop with this very bad analogy that TMM made up. Real Property Laws are quite well-defined, and to be honest can be considered in existence ever since civilization began. Unlike Intellectual Property which are just recent developments, and quite obviously unable to match technological progress.

Sort of. A better example would be print or broadcast media. Generally, freedom of speech is a right. However, newspapers and TV channels don't have to let every whackjob that wants to say something do so in their mediums. Someone can't walk into the Time's building and demand the Time's print their crazy false story. However, nothing stops that person from making their own newspaper and printing their story in their own paper.

[HammerON]

Now this has been a funny thread to read