Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Client information I don't understand Karl's suggestion that customer data is public domain. If I work for an software company and walk out with the source code for various projects, and post it to a web site, should the web site be able to say "I didn't steal it, leave me alone?"
I don't understand why internal records and customer data should be different. I'm not sympathetic to offshore banks (and those who use them). I'm not a fan of Microsoft either. But, I know if I "anonymously" received the source code for MS Office, I'd be expected to know that I'm in possession of stolen property.
Mark |
|
| You have a point, but in this case it wasn't a product (source code) that was posted, it was evidence of a crime. (particularly of the bank's involvement in one) So I think that turns the argument a bit.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Camelot One:You have a point, but in this case it wasn't a product (source code) that was posted, it was evidence of a crime. (particularly of the bank's involvement in one) So I think that turns the argument a bit. MS is a convicted monopoly. Does that change the fact that someone is in possession of stolen property?
It sounds self serving (to me) to say the person who stole the bank's property, and gave it to a web site was really trying to uphold the law. That's like saying the guy busted with crack was standing on the corner selling it to *bring attention* to the illegal nature of crack, and was hoping the cops would come and look into what he was doing.
Even if we have a disposition toward "the ends justify the means," I don't understand the tone of the DSLR intro. It makes it sound ridiculous that the bank would be able to assert its rights over its property.
Mark |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:I don't understand Karl's suggestion that customer data is public domain. If I work for an software company and walk out with the source code for various projects, and post it to a web site, should the web site be able to say "I didn't steal it, leave me alone?" I don't understand why internal records and customer data should be different. I'm not sympathetic to offshore banks (and those who use them). I'm not a fan of Microsoft either. But, I know if I "anonymously" received the source code for MS Office, I'd be expected to know that I'm in possession of stolen property. Mark The bottom line is that argument is way to rational for DSLR. Please take that well thought out statement someplace else.
--
с новым годом |
|
|
|
 RealoRcPremium
join:2003-01-25
Brooklyn, NY | reply to amigo_boy
I think the analogy should be more like, Microsoft uses code from software under GNU licensing. A programmer working at Microsoft publishes source code for a portion of Windows that show borrowed lines of code.
Or the AT&T whistleblower that told us about the top secret NSA wiretapping room using documents he had. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by RealoRc:I think the analogy should be more like, Microsoft uses code from software under GNU licensing. A programmer working at Microsoft publishes source code for a portion of Windows that show borrowed lines of code. Publishing the borrowed lines doesn't violate anyone's copyright because they are themselves open source. The employee didn't walk out with open source materials. She walked out with what is obviously the employer's property.
I'm not necessarily opposed to that if it's part of "whistle blowing." But, it's not astounding that the property owner would assert its rights. It's their property. There is no GPL attached to anything in the documents.
Mark |
|
 whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:8 | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy: Does that change the fact that someone is in possession of stolen property? It sounds self serving (to me) to say the person who stole the bank's property... Lets get something straight here; and it involves learning the basic definition of theft. Theft (stealing) can only occur if you deprive the original owner of something of their right to use that something. In other words, making copies of documents can never, ever be theft. It doesn't fit even the Webster's definition of theft, much less the legal definition.
On the other hand, it can be considered a copyright violation (if indeed the information is copyrighted). This is typically a civil, not criminal offense. Likewise, theft of services is not the same as theft. Unfortunately, it has the word theft in its title. Sometimes it can be, if the owner is deprived of consideration (money) they could other make by selling the services, but are deprived of this opportunity.
The problem with even calling this a copyright violation, is that the materials published are evidence of a crime. Copyrighting something, so that you could conceal evidence of a crime and prevent copies from being made, is certainly not the reason for copyrights; and to boot, is a legally supported action. The information was published for news purposes (first ammendment), and could even be covered under various wistleblower laws. Likewise, shutting down an entire website, rather than simply issuing an injunction against the particular material, is way off-base; illegal; and has me wondering just how much money the judge took in graft. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by whizkid3:Theft (stealing) can only occur if you deprive the original owner of something of their right to use that something. I guarantee you if you walk out of your employers premise with cartons of records, you'll be charged with theft.
Going further, if you use those records to reveal confidential and private information about the employer's customers you will have deprived the owner of those records of her reputation (ability to protect her property).
said by whizkid3:The problem with even calling this a copyright violation, Under current copyright law everything is considered copyrighted whether it has a copyright notice or not.
Mark |
|
whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:8 | You just quoted my copyrighted words, then.
You stole them from me.
Boo hoo. |
|
| reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez: But, I know if I "anonymously" received the source code for MS Office, I'd be expected to know that I'm in possession of stolen property.
The bottom line is that argument is way to rational for DSLR. Please take that well thought out statement someplace else. The bottom line is that statement is legally false.
In Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), the United States Supreme Court ruled that copies of copyrighted works are NOT stolen property. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by russotto:said by wifi4milez: But, I know if I "anonymously" received the source code for MS Office, I'd be expected to know that I'm in possession of stolen property.
The bottom line is that argument is way to rational for DSLR. Please take that well thought out statement someplace else. The bottom line is that statement is legally false. In Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), the United States Supreme Court ruled that copies of copyrighted works are NOT stolen property. Incorrect. The copies themselves may not be stolen property (if maintained with legal permission), but the unauthorized taking of said copies constitutes an act of theft. Also, distributing said copies is illegal as well.
--
с новым годом |
|
| said by wifi4milez:Incorrect. The copies themselves may not be stolen property (if maintained with legal permission), but the unauthorized taking of said copies constitutes an act of theft. Also, distributing said copies is illegal as well. Non sequitur. You claimed the copy of the source code you (hypothetically) anonymously received was "stolen property". That's just plain legally false, as that Supreme Court case demonstrates. There's no act of theft necessarily involved. Distributing the copy is a violation of copyright law, but that doesn't make the copy itself "stolen", according to the ruling in that court case. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by whizkid3:Theft (stealing) can only occur if you deprive the original owner of something of their right to use that something. I guarantee you if you walk out of your employers premise with cartons of records, you'll be charged with theft. That would be true if you were walking out with the originals... If you are walking out with photocopies, but leave behind the originals, the charge of theft won't stick.
Going further, if you use those records to reveal confidential and private information about the employer's customers you will have deprived the owner of those records of her reputation (ability to protect her property). That is a civil offense. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by factchecker :
That would be true if you were walking out with the originals... If you are walking out with photocopies, but leave behind the originals, the charge of theft won't stick.
Try it. I guarantee you'll be charged with theft. You have no right to remove anything from your employer's premise without their consent.
Mark |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to russotto
said by russotto:said by wifi4milez:Incorrect. The copies themselves may not be stolen property (if maintained with legal permission), but the unauthorized taking of said copies constitutes an act of theft. Also, distributing said copies is illegal as well. Non sequitur. You claimed the copy of the source code you (hypothetically) anonymously received was "stolen property". That's just plain legally false, as that Supreme Court case demonstrates. There's no act of theft necessarily involved. Distributing the copy is a violation of copyright law, but that doesn't make the copy itself "stolen", according to the ruling in that court case. Again, it really depends on the nature of the documents in question. In a business environment it could be construed as corporate espionage (theft). I am not talking about using the documents mind you (that would be a copyright violation), I am referring to the act of taking them. In a government organization one could also be charged with espionage (again, theft) of state secrets (a federal offense by the way). This particular instance is in a grey area as the company resides outside of the US. In either case, taking confidential information without permission is theft, and no ruling has ever disputed that.
--
с новым годом |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by factchecker :
That would be true if you were walking out with the originals... If you are walking out with photocopies, but leave behind the originals, the charge of theft won't stick.
Try it. I guarantee you'll be charged with theft. You have no right to remove anything from your employer's premise without their consent. Sorry, but as the other poster has stated, I think you need to learn how the legal definition of theft works.
Without actually removing the property - the originals - you are not committing theft... The company has not been deprived of its property. Period. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to russotto
said by russotto:In Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), the United States Supreme Court ruled that copies of copyrighted works are NOT stolen property. You're leaving out the part "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" which didn't apply to Dowling. How does Dowling compare to an employee who is undoubtedly governed by an employment agreement and ongoing policies?
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to russotto
I disagree. In Dowling the Court ruled that simply buying a copyrighted product and copying it does not rise to "theft" as defined by "stolen, converted or taken by fraud."
It is a non sequitur to say that an employee who stole documents *that were not offered for sale*, while violating employment agreements and accepted policies falls into the same category.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :
I think you need to learn how the legal definition of theft works.
In Dowling it hinged on whether the copies were "stolen, converted or taken by fraud." The Court held that simply copying items that were essentially publically available for sale didn't constitute "theft" (criminality, instead of copyright violation, a civil matter.).
An employers papers are not offered for sale. They were obtained through fraud (agreeing to an employment agreement and ongoing policies).
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:An employers papers are not offered for sale. They were obtained through fraud (agreeing to an employment agreement and ongoing policies). Actually, that would not be the case. If you are going say that the employee violated an "employment agreement or policies", that would be a breach of contract and would not constitute fraud.
The only way that it might be fraud is if the employee took the job with the specific intention of violating the employment agreement and copying the documents prior to being hired. |
|
