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

[radusorin]

And as you know to piss is not a right, but in order for you to exercise you right of living you are obligated to piss. Because you can piss dosn't mean you have that right, it's only moral logic that if you don't do that you will deprive your self from the right to live. In the same manner you can fly to the moon, but that dosn't make it a right just because you can do it. A right is not something you to add to a action just because you can do it, it is something written in a constitution not something we make up just because we can do that action. Of course you can plant a tree, but you dont have the right to plant it in my yard. You will have that right only wen I (the owner) give you permission to do so. By planting a tree in my yard you are violating my right over that property. You are depriving me of my rights over that property. And it is my right and moral obligation to take care of my property as i am responsible for it. So if that tree is defined by the law as illegal and that information comes to my knowledge i do not have the right, but nether it is illegal to take it down. Other wise my action (of not taking it down) would mean that i am intentional doing something illegal or helping someone in doing something illegal and here the law applies to me because I'm the owner of that land, not to you for planting it there in the first place. Even if I can proof that you planted that tree I'm still accused of helping you by not taken it down wen I was informed that that tree is illegal.

The same goes for youtube they are only evading the "intentionally doing something illegal". One of the ways is to give certain organization the right to delete content form there site if it is illegal or if they think it is illegal, something along this lines.

 

[Steevo]

I need some shrubs, do you guys have any torrent links?

 

[Vulpesveritas]

I need some shrubs, do you guys have any torrent links?

umm... hold on one moment, I just have to figure out the airspeed velocity of this sparrow first.

On topic - rights are speculitive in the USA, as the constitution says we have unwritten rights. And any rights not given to the federal government is given to the states and the people and all. So you could try to argue your right to do something, although there is no certainty the judgment of your community as a whole that you have such a right

In the end "rights" are illusions made by assumptions, words, and actions of man.

 

[streetfighter 2]

I think everything should be open source. Code alone is very rarely a full program. The gross tonnage of a modern application is 99% textures/pictures and unexecutable data. Most people can't program, let alone compile the stuff, so they'd still be buying it.

A lot of time spent programming involves "reinventing the wheel". It is much as if scientific papers could only be written on their intrinsic strength, instead of using other papers to build a large body of evidence. Perhaps they could arrange some sort of exclusivity period similar to pharmaceuticals that would preserve the incentive and reduce the impediment to progress.

I need some shrubs, do you guys have any torrent links?

Your argument disregards de facto standards of constitutional authority derived in deterministic methodology via shrubbery; such that if I were to plant a yard in your shrubbery a tree wouldn't necessitate a factual paradox until a singularity converged into a walrus. Quid pro quo.

 

[newtekie1]

And as you know to piss is not a right, but in order for you to exercise you right of living you are obligated to piss.

Actually, to piss is a right, to use the bathroom to do it is not. You are more than welcome to piss yourself all you want, no one is stopping you.

 

[Kreij]

I love this discussion !!

A "right" is something afforded to you by law. If you toss out the inclusion of law in the argument, you also toss out the concept of rights.
For instance, in a state of anarchy (no government or laws) you would have no rights whatsoever, as there would be no one to enforce what we consider rights.

 

[newtekie1]

I love this discussion !!

A "right" is something afforded to you by law. If you toss out the inclusion of law in the argument, you also toss out the concept of rights.
For instance, in a state of anarchy (no government or laws) you would have no rights whatsoever, as there would be no one to enforce what we consider rights.

Exactly, thank you. That is exactly why your rights change based on where you are in the world.

 

[Kreij]

@Newtekie : This of course means that you have no "legal" right to piss, or even breath, as you are not specifically afforded the right by law. However, since both are a requirement of living (right to life) it is superceded by that right and gets included in a package deal.

I'm a little torn by this inclusion rule as there are a few people who I feel are just wasting our precious oxygen by being allowed to breath.
(Just kidding, Old Uncle Kreij likes everyone, even if they are a PITA sometimes.)

Also, just because a law does not specifically deem an action as illegal, does not grant you the right to do it. For instance, if you yell "Fire" in a crowded theater (and there is no fire), you will not be protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, as your right to free speech does not protect you if you are purposefully (or ignorantly) endangering the life and well-being of others through your action(s).

Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in the US ... which is why I recommend that everyone take the time to learn their rights and the laws that apply to them.

Okay ... carry on.