| reply to amigo_boy
Re: Client information 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 |
|
 RealoRcPremium
join:2003-01-25
Brooklyn, NY | 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 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 |
|
|
|
| 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
| 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. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by factchecker :
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.
Every day you enter an employer's work place without informing them that you have unilaterally rejected your employment agreement and ongoing employment policies is an act of fraud. Doing so to obtain copies of your employer's papers deemed to be the highest classification of confidential and "internal use only" is to obtain them through fraud.
A classic definition of theft.
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:Every day you enter an employer's work place without informing them that you have unilaterally rejected your employment agreement and ongoing employment policies is an act of fraud. Actually, it is not. Unless gain by the person who is violating those agreements can be demonstrated, fraud has not taken place.
A demonstrated gain must take place for it to be an act of fraud - for example, laundering money from the company.
I recommend you take some time to familiarize yourself with the term fraud while you are at it...
And regardless, because all of this took place in another nation, the reality is that this discussion is a waste of time because US law doesn't apply to the alleged offense. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by factchecker :
A demonstrated gain must take place for it to be an act of fraud - for example, laundering money from the company. Do you have a reference for that definition? Everything I've read says that fraud involves three elements: a material false statement made with an intent to deceive (scienter), a victim’s reliance on the statement and damages.
Blackstone's definition of fraud:
All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is cheated.
Source: Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., by Henry Campbell Black, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979. Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:Do you have a reference for that definition? Everything I've read says that fraud involves three elements: a material false statement made with an intent to deceive (scienter), a victim’s reliance on the statement and damages. Gain = damages. For example, if I use deception to get your life savings for a real estate investment scam, my gain (your life savings) is the damage you can claim (the value of your life savings).
Blackstone's definition of fraud: All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is cheated.
Ergo, my statement stands and your own source has supported my assertion. There must be a demonstrated gain for the action to constitute fraud.
Merely lying does not constitute fraud. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by factchecker :
Gain = damages.
Damages do not have to equal gain to the damager in order for there to be damages. I might knowingly pass counterfeit money with the intent to defraud you of your money. If I burn all the real money I receive (and therefore don't gain from it) it doesn't mean I didn't defraud people and cause them damage.
Please provide a source for your assertion.
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:Damages do not have to equal gain to the damager in order for there to be damages. I might knowingly pass counterfeit money with the intent to defraud you of your money. Note how your example creates a gain...
If you can illustrate an example of fraud that nets you nothing (at no point do you ever gain more money, resources, etc. than you had before), I'd be willing to say that you might have some standing.
If I burn all the real money I receive (and therefore don't gain from it) it doesn't mean I didn't defraud people and cause them damage. Actually, you did gain from it because the amount of money you had was greater than when you started. Just because you were a moron and burned all of your ill gotten gains does not erase that you had a net gain. The gain at the expense of another via deception still exists. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by facthchecker :
If you can illustrate an example of fraud that nets you nothing (at no point do you ever gain more money, resources, etc. than you had before), I'd be willing to say that you might have some standing.
Unilaterally rejecting my employment agreement, and my employer's stated policies in order to copy my employer's documents I would otherwise have no right to access.
Mark |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to facthchecker
said by facthchecker :
Note how your example creates a gain...
If you can illustrate an example of fraud that nets you nothing (at no point do you ever gain more money, resources, etc. than you had before), I'd be willing to say that you might have some standing.
The "gain" doesnt necessarily need to be financial. One could conceivably leak documents for the simple fact of defaming another individual, or discrediting a corporation. That type of gain cant be measured in currency, yet is still a predictable outcome. There are many levels of gain that one must look at. In a court case, leaked documents could result in a trial being dismissed, or a person going to jail. Neither of those would involve any sense of "personal" gain, yet one would gain something none the less (time not served in jail, etc.)
--
с новым годом |
|
