Appeals Court Rules Computer Code Is Not "Property"

[Lateral-G]

Appeals Court Rules Computer Code Is Not "Property"

http://gizmodo.com/5901263/court-rules-it-is-impossible-to-steal-computer-code

[h=1]Appeals Court Rules Computer Code Is Not "Property" and Can’t Be Stolen[/h] Sergey Aleynikov, an ex-Goldman-Sachs programmer, spent a year in prison for downloading source code of the firm's high-speed trading software before his sentence was overturned in February. Today, the court explained why—downloading computer code doesn't constitute stealing under the National Stolen Property Act.
The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court ruled that since computer code cannot be physically obtained, it doesn't fit the legal description of a stolen good. "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 court wrote in its decision.
In addition, the Appeals Court struck down charges against Aleynikov of violating the Electronic Espionage Act since the software was never destined for foreign markets. Specifically, 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."
The court was quick to point out that this decision should not be interpreted for all cases of electronic theft, however the legal recognition that code isn't physical property (which people have been saying for years) is sure to make this case a focal point in future MPAA/RIAA wranglings.

 

[Willy]

This is going to have an affect on a lot software copyrights.

 

[aeromed202]

I don't quite understand the ruling logic "...since computer code cannot be physically obtained, it doesn't fit the legal description of a stolen good." Ideas, things that fit that definition of not being physically obtainable, have been protected for a very long time and I just don't see the difference. Could be that the courts are woefully behind on this new area of law. Look at how long it took to make headway against interstate crimes via the internet.

 

[Sieggie]

I don't quite understand the ruling logic "...since computer code cannot be physically obtained, it doesn't fit the legal description of a stolen good." Ideas, things that fit that definition of not being physically obtainable, have been protected for a very long time and I just don't see the difference. Could be that the courts are woefully behind on this new area of law. Look at how long it took to make headway against interstate crimes via the internet.

It falls under copyright law or patent law not stolen goods. If the code is used in a product for sale, the producer of the product using the pilfered code is guilty of copyright or patent violations and can be sued for damages, just like the auto companies were sued for the intermittent windshield wipers.

He should have been sued in civil court by the company for violation of non-disclosure agreements or workplace misconduct, not by the criminal system.

Dave

 

[Allen]

I was going to post about this but I don't do well in these thread....

It falls under copyright law or patent law not stolen goods. If the code is used in a product for sale, the producer of the product using the pilfered code is guilty of copyright or patent violations and can be sued for damages, just like the auto companies were sued for the intermittent windshield wipers.

He should have been sued in civil court by the company for violation of non-disclosure agreements or workplace misconduct, not by the criminal system.

Dave

Thank your very much.

For those that don't quite get it this pic should help...

View attachment 63155
Note you may be sued in civil court to no end but your not going to jail.

 

[TeaSea]

Since 1997 with the signing of the NET act, file sharing as described above for
profit or not is defined as theft and prosecutable under U.S. Federal statute.

Reciprocity exists with most West European nations as well as many Asian countries.

So don't kid yourself.

This pertains to "copyright", not so-called "real property".

 

[magoo]

Since 1997 with the signing of the NET act, file sharing as described above for
profit or not is defined as theft and prosecutable under U.S. Federal statute.

....I think this may be an example of a judge whacking it back into the law maker's lap for greater and more workable defintion. Certainly the propriety of computer code copyright and it's enforcement may be seen as having precedant that may create overlapping governance in other copyright-able media. Things that may affect libraries, teaching, personal uses of extended forms of media.

I'll bet it all gets stranger before things settle into a cleanly definable sediment.

 

[TeaSea]

Well, that or a distinction made on the basis of how a potential offense is prosecuted.

One thing about copyright law is that it continually evolves, leaving those who hope to protect their intellectual property scratching their heads. I think extending protections to real property might have Unintended consequences, but that's pure speculation on my part.

I agree with you this will likely get a little stranger before all agree to a legal standard.