Slashdot Mirror

You are correct. This site has some good information including some applicable federal statutes involving theft of trade secrets and economic espionage. This guy was looking at up to 10 years in prison and 500K in fines so he got off relativly lightly. I never knew that theft of trade secrets carried criminal attachment, I thought it was purely a civil tort, shows how much you might not know about the law if you're not a lawyer.

"Close your eyes and imagine a world where music could be copied freely from one media to another without threat of lawsuit, digital rights mangement, unplayable CDs, etc... Is it so hard to do? Well it's STILL like that in most countries and it was that way in the US until recently."

For what it's worth, copyright laws have been to a large extent standardized internationally due to the Berne Convention. It's been around since 1886. The vast majority of developed nations are part of the union created by the Convention. The United States didn't become a signatory until more than a hundred years later, in 1989.

Some countries which haven't joined are Afghanistan, Bhutan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Nepal, Oman, San Marino, Tonga and Yemen.

The user decicides to change the copywrited work ...

Article 12 of the Berne Convention (signatories) states that:

Authors of literary or artistic [ie copyrighted] works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of their works.

By removing a part of the 'work' you are making an adaption, you need authorisation from the owner of the copyright for that.

Incidentally, I think protection of computer programs by current types of Intellectual Property Rights sucks.

>You don't have to deprive someone of something to be guilty of stealing.

So, if I, as a parent, stopped my child's allowace because they misbehave, I've stolen it?

Does a murderer steal lives?

Does someone who is greedy and buys all the CDRs in the city (this happened where I live) steal them?

Does someone who makes a profit steal it? I mean, there is no law saying you are entitled to make a profit on anything whatsoever.

Does someone who decides not to give a dollar to the bum on the street in fact steal the dollar from the bum?

No. You are confused on the issue and I reccomend you consult the dictionary on this matter. Perhaps a synonym might help.

This is the definition of piracy. Notice no mention of theft, or its synonyms, unless your name is BlackBeard or Bin Laden.

Dictionaries were very careful to clear this up in the past because people were beginning the confuse the issues. I am happy they've done so. Notice how dictionary.com went out of their way to use the verbose sentence "The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material" rather than "Stealing Intellectual Property". That's because they saw the difference.

If you read the Berne Convention, the international foundation of modern copyright law, you'll never see the words steal or theft. The world's lawyers were careful to separate the meanings even though they have the most to gain. If english teachers, lawyers, judges, and many other respected people around the world firmly agree on this issue, why don't you?

I think you'll be very interested to know that in my country we are allowed to buy CDRs from America (bypassing a special media tax) and burn a copy of any album we like at a friends house and take it home. This is a law agreed to by the people, the lawyers, the artists, and the media companies, even when this loophole was explicitly pointed out once (we've all agreed to the law a second time, even after the rush on the border for CDRs). If any of these people considered that stealing (which, by your definition, it is) they would have most certainly not have agreed to allow this to happen.

Put simply, piracy is (for example) copying a song when you shouldn't, plain and simple. Stealing is when you take a car for a joyride. The difference is remarkable.

>I don't require a Viper RT/10, but I just want to have one, so I stole mine.

Interesting how you confuse piracy with larceny.

When you pirate a movie, or music you deprive no one of that movie or music; whereas when you commit GTA you deprive someone of their vehicle.

Since a replicator is to matter as a CD-Burner is to data, would you still consider it theft if you replicated a Viper RT/10 using your own equipment and materials?

If so I would humbly suggest you are a tiny minority of people, and that's the reason why both the dictionary and the law disagree with you.

My search turns up nothing for "theft", "steal", or "larceny" in the Berne Convention. Methinks you are just plain confused on the issue. Hope this clears it up for you!

>So, kindly eat a dick.

Not that I'd want to; But its pretty hard when its shoved so far up your ass.

>People who attempt to justify their theft in any way are fucktards.

Agreed, to a certain degree (Les Miserables come to mind as a particular exemption). That's why Copyright Violation is a violation of copyright law, not (AFAIK) theft.

Or at least that wasn't the intention of the people who created our modern day copyright system.

Maybe where you live, but in the U.S. almost every state has a Trade Secret law.

Here's Florida's, which is modeled on the national UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT, and is therefore the same or similar to most states' act.

In answer to the original question, note 688.002,especially (2)(b)3., which reads in part:

(2)"Misappropriation" means:
(a)...
(b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who:
1. ...
2. ...
3. Before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

Without the 'Before a material change of his position' clause, it would seem that this law would clearly prohibit redistribution of "SirCam secrets". However, that clause (to me) seems to imply that the person who acquired the secret throgh mistake or accident is presumed to be an employee or in some other particular relationship to the owner of the secret, and not a stranger, thus not prohibiting distribution by such an "innocent" stranger even when that stranger knows it's a secret.

However, I'm not a lawyer...

I believe you might be refering to the Berne Convention.

J