 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Client information 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 |
|
| 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. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | 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 |
|
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 |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy: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 Exactly. Its called "selective reading" and its used all the time on this website.
--
с новым годом |
|
