Yes, we already do. AFAIK, the number of people who have been prosecuted for theft of a digital movie file (as opposed to violations of copyright law) is zero.
I've definitely read things, and maybe they were just statements from the RIAA/MPAA, that said copyright infringement was exactly the same thing as theft. Or am I making that up?
They're certainly happy to describe it that way in PR moves and the like, but they've only ever really sued people over copyright infringement, or pursued criminal copyright infringement charges.
Actually charging a copyright infringer with criminal theft of property, as opposed to just colloquially calling such infringement theft, is a fairly novel legal tactic.
Of course. This is obvious to anyone who isn't indoctrinated by copyright industry doublespeak.
Copyright law is a restriction on the copying of information. Theft has no place in copyright law and never has. It is merely a perjorative term used to confuse the issue.
Edit: Apologies for my angry tone. As you can tell, this really bothers me.
Now that is an interesting monkey in the wrench. A 2nd Circuit opinion that allows that
"He (the defendant) argues that:
[1] the source code was not a “stolen” “good”
within the meaning of the NSPA, and
[2] the source code was
not “related to or included in a product that is produced
for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce” within the
meaning of the EEA.
The judgement of the district court is
reversed."
Which narrows the opinion to the definitions in the NSPA and EEA but I think some creative lawyering should be able to get this into things like code to compress images for example.
It will be interesting to see if anyone can use this as leverage in the ongoing copyright/patent/IP discussion.
Which is particularly ridiculous, as _money_ is not physical at all. Even physical money -- bills and coins -- is just information, just as when you write down your phone number on a piece of paper.
FTA, “Because Aleynikov did not ‘assume physical control’ over anything when he took the source code, and because he did not thereby ‘deprive [Goldman] of its use,’ Aleynikov did not violate the [National Stolen Property Act],” the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in its opinion (.pdf).
17 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 50.5 ms ] threadActually charging a copyright infringer with criminal theft of property, as opposed to just colloquially calling such infringement theft, is a fairly novel legal tactic.
Copyright law is a restriction on the copying of information. Theft has no place in copyright law and never has. It is merely a perjorative term used to confuse the issue.
Edit: Apologies for my angry tone. As you can tell, this really bothers me.
"He (the defendant) argues that:
[1] the source code was not a “stolen” “good” within the meaning of the NSPA, and
[2] the source code was not “related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce” within the meaning of the EEA.
The judgement of the district court is reversed."
Which narrows the opinion to the definitions in the NSPA and EEA but I think some creative lawyering should be able to get this into things like code to compress images for example.
It will be interesting to see if anyone can use this as leverage in the ongoing copyright/patent/IP discussion.
Does this mean that a programmer working at a firm can walk away with code without breaking any laws?
Theft of digital money deprives.