Microsoft Acknowledges Theft of Code From Plurk

adeelarshad82 writes with news that Microsoft has acknowledged and taken responsibility for the theft of code belonging to Plurk.com, although the company also said it was the work of a Chinese vendor. Yesterday we discussed Plurk's blog post accusing Microsoft of copying their UI and code for Microsoft's Chinese microblogging site, Juku. Microsoft has now taken the site down and indefinitely suspended Juku's beta.

Comments

a world without copyright

[alain94040]

"The Chinese vendor for our MSN China joint venture has now acknowledged that a portion of the code they provided was indeed copied," said Microsoft

This case gives us a great window into what a world without copyright protection would look like: everyone ripping off everyone else's code. There got to be a compromise that works for both the GPL and the RIAA, so end users (us) win.

Plus it's ironic that Microsoft, the "king" of software development is having all those problems with subcontractors writing code for them.

--
you don't need to be in silicon valley to start a startup anymore

Re:a world without copyright

[NoYob]

Plus it's ironic that Microsoft, the "king" of software development is having all those problems with subcontractors writing code for them.

Well, if Microsoft is the "King" and Apple has the second largest share of the PC market, I guess that would make Apple the "Queen" of software development?

....

Yes, I know. I'm going to get it from the fanboys with mod points but, I just couldn't resist!

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus it's ironic that Microsoft, the "king" of software development is having all those problems with subcontractors writing code for them.

This is the second time it's happened to MSFT recently, the other was a windows 7 tool that used GPL'd code. If Microsoft begins using Chinese shops for Windows development, it wont be long before they have to audit their Windows codebase for GPL'd Reactos code. Now that would be ironic!

Re:a world without copyright

[Sponge Bath]

I guess that would make Apple the "Queen" of software development?

Because I'm easy come, easy go
Little high, little low,
any way the winblows.

Re:a world without copyright

[cpghost]

This case gives us a great window into what a world without copyright protection would look like: everyone ripping off everyone else's code.

And what's wrong with code sharing and code reusing? Aren't we all but standing on the shoulders of giants (scientists and coders alike)?

Re:a world without copyright

[selven]

What's wrong with ripping off code? If Microsoft rips off code from these people and these people rip off code from microsoft in return, both (and by extension the end users) benefit.

Re:a world without copyright

[Nutria]

And what's wrong with code sharing and code reusing?

Any place that aspires to be First World needs the Rule Of Law. Licenses, and following them, are part of that law. The GPL, LGPL, BSD, Apache, MIT/X, etc, etc are Free licenses which encourage code sharing and reusing. Closed licensing does not, but to stay civilized, we must respect -- even if we do not agree with -- those who choose to keep their source closed.

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

All we hear is radio GaGa...

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

2nd largest share is misleading. isn't their market share around 10% (and a majority of that 10% also own a system with MS)? Apple is more of a countess...

Re:a world without copyright

[Gadget_Guy]

Plus it's ironic that Microsoft, the "king" of software development is having all those problems with subcontractors writing code for them.

I don't think that you will find anyone who claims they are the king of software development. They are very willing to simply buy up someone's work to base their products on. They have done that ever since MS-DOS. It's just the proprietry version of the code reuse that happens in the open souce world.

However, it is their Achilles heal because they cannot guarantee the origin of the code. I can't help but wonder whether they might start to shy away from this practice after the troubles that they have had. On the other hand, when developing for a different market like China, it makes sense to use local knowledge of language and mindset of the people.

Re:a world without copyright

[Maxo-Texas]

If the original coders back in 1960 to 1980 felt the same, you wouldn't be able to do a directory listing and windows would be a mythical dream still locked up in a Xerox research lab.

Code should be reused. ANY code built on something that was given to the public domain should be free and public domain.

Otherwise, they should buy every tool and properly license every library before releasing anything.

Re:a world without copyright

[poetmatt]

I think you're looking at this a bit backwards here, since no part of this involves people respecting MS's rights, but more MS not respecting other individual's rights (acknowledgment of prior knowledge is far from it being an accident, whether it was through a subcontractor as they state or not).

Re:a world without copyright

[euxneks]

This case gives us a great window into what a world without copyright protection would look like: everyone ripping off everyone else's code. There got to be a compromise that works for both the GPL and the RIAA, so end users (us) win.

The compromise is to require completely open source code from all software vendors. People will go to the place that has the best results for them, and if everything is open source, we don't have to worry about people "stealing" things - it becomes easy for everyone to see if everyone else is using or taking their code, and particularly inspired developers will add to the code.

It would be like books now - there's copyright on them thar books and if you copy it and sell it under a different book title, it's plainly obvious.

Closed source is a way for a company to hide their dubious practices. It's when shit is closed source like what microsoft normally does that it takes a lot of effort to tell if they're standing on the backs of the hardworking goliath that is open source developers.

Re:a world without copyright

[AuMatar]

This makes no sense. You can argue that since licenses are currently the law we need to follow them (or get them repealed), but you gave no evidence or logic for why the law should allow for copyright or licenses of any type. And no, we don't need to respect closed source- even in a world that has licensing you can work to legally circumvent or to repeal them. Or you can just believe in civil disobedience and ignore them entirely.

Re:a world without copyright

[tlhIngan]

Plus it's ironic that Microsoft, the "king" of software development is having all those problems with subcontractors writing code for them.

I think it's a good thing actually. Because it's revealing the problems of subcontracting. What Microsoft is seeing already has happened elsewhere. Just the victim is either too small, or the companies involved are smaller, so that news of stuff like this is lucky to make the news. Only big companies get the attention of the press.

Code gets "reused" all the time, accidentally or maliciously. Just the parties are often too small or settle quickly to be more than a ripple. In fact, I'd guess Microsoft and other companies are looking at the three major code "reuse" issues in recent history - Microsoft and the USB/DVD Downloader Tool, this thing, and the BusyBox thing, to carefully audit their subcontracted code.

Re:a world without copyright

[santiagodraco]

How about everything? If I don't' want to share my code what gives you the right to take it without my consent? I find it hard to believe that there are people out there that would promote the theft of the work of others and try to imply some sort of nobility about the act, as if by not sharing you are somehow a lesser person.

I'd suggest that by not doing your own work, yourself, and expecting others to provide it that YOU are the lesser person not the originator.

Re:a world without copyright

[sexconker]

And no, we don't need to respect closed source

Why not? Because you don't want to?
Fuck you.

People write closed source code for a living. It is a real, tangible product with real, tangible costs.

How about I go to your house and just take what I want?

Re:a world without copyright

[santiagodraco]

Let me translate your post for you so others can better comprehend:

"This makes no sense (blah blah blah)... or you can just believe in theft and ignore laws entirely.

Re:a world without copyright

[darkpixel2k]

...

if everything is open source, we don't have to worry about people "stealing" things - it becomes easy for everyone to see if everyone else is using or taking their code, and particularly inspired developers will add to the code.

Spoken like someone who doesn't develop software for a living.
My company (among other things) develops software. The sale of that software pays for our homes, electricity, computers, and the ability to continue developing programs that people need.

Now if someone wants to pay my car payment, house payment, electricity bill, buy a few new computers, etc...then sure--I'll develop and release software for free.

But as long as I need to feed my family, I need to continue earning money. If I can't do that by developing software, I'll go pump gas and you can live without it.

If Microsoft couldn't make money from their software, and Bill had decided to pump gas instead, where would you be today?

Would linux be where it is today?
How about the iPhone?

Re:a world without copyright

[pnewhook]

This case gives us a great window into what a world without copyright protection would look like: everyone ripping off everyone else's code.

That's not a case for copyright protection, thats a case for not releasing source code. If the source code is not available, then it can't be stolen, can it?

If you can recreate source code just by looking at the executable, then that falls under the category of 'obvious' and is not patentable. If you cannot recreate the functionality, then that is better protection than any patent can provide.

Software patents are basically pointless.

Re:a world without copyright

[Opportunist]

Yes, but it is one thing to reuse code. It's entirely another one to rip it off.

Science is about standing on giant's shoulders. Not claiming to be the giant.

Re:a world without copyright

[maxwell demon]

How about I go to your house and just take what I want?

The analogy fails in several ways.
First: Your house usually contains private stuff. Going to someone's house is more like breaking into his computer.
Second: If you take something away, it's not there any more.

And the argument that some people do something for a living doesn't tell you anything about if that should be legal. In the times of slavery, some people were trading slaves for a living. Professional killers kill for a living. By your logic, slavery and killing should be legal.

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

being civilly disobedient doesn't mean that you are above the law

Re:a world without copyright

[palegray.net]

That is neither ladylike nor gaga.

Re:a world without copyright

[maxwell demon]

Private stuff? It's merely the product of his labors, as is code to a programmer. Why is there a distinction between private and non-private "stuff" anyway?

For example, say he has naked photos of his girl friend in his house. Do you think he (or his girl friend) would be happy if a total stranger sees them? And I'm pretty sure the answer to this question has zero relation to the work he put into those photos.

Oh fuck off with your "it's not theft" bullshit.

Great argument ;-) Especially since I haven't talked about words. I talked about effects. Namely the effect of something not being there any more.

You directly damage people by copying their code without paying them for it. It is a real, tangible effect.

No. Not any more than by simply not using their damned code at all. They don't have a loss, they only do not get a profit. There is no basic right to get a profit from whatever you do.

You just compared closed source code and IP law to slavery and homicide

No, I didn't. I applied your argument to slavery and homicide, to show that the argument isn't valid. If you don't get the difference, you should take a course in basic logic.

Re:a world without copyright

[MightyMartian]

Um, you're talking about two different things. It's one thing to copy a concept, like directories on a file system, but it's quite another to rip off code.

Re:a world without copyright

[westlake]

Or you can just believe in civil disobedience and ignore them entirely.

Belief is not enough. The essence of civil disobedience is that you accept the risk of civil and criminal penalties.

Arrest. Conviction. Confinement.

The essence of civil disobedience is that you do so without any guarantees whatever. You may rot in jail and be entirely - and perhaps deservedly - forgotten.

You may be bankrupt by a judgment and no one will give a damn.

we don't need to respect closed source

You respect closed source or open source loses its meaning, support and protection.

You've unilaterally declared all exposed code to be public domain. That doesn't code out into the open. It drive s it deeper into hiding.

you gave no evidence or logic for why the law should allow for copyright or licenses of any type

There are three ways of supporting a significant creative talent. He can have an independent source of income.

Which means that in all likelihood he will remain forever an amateur. He almost certainly not be working class.

The first alternative is patronage - by the state, the church, or the merchant prince. Each will have their own agenda which will shape the final product.

The second is through sales. This opens the door fully to participation by the lower and middle classes.

That is where you'll find Huck Finn. Dorothy Gale. Sam Spade. Susie Salmon.

But to make a living through his work and to build an estate for his family, the artist must have control over the use of his work.

Copyright drives innovation. You have to take chances. You have no protection unless you have produced a substantially original work.

Re:a world without copyright

[steelfood]

Closed source, compiled binaries have no problem with the code being copied in any world.

There are just laws, and unjust laws. What separates the so-called "First World" from the so-called "Third World" may be the laws, but that which separates the free and the oppressed is the justness of the laws governing those people.

I don't think it's the majority's desire to do away with an unjust law. I think what most people want is to replace the unjust laws with just ones.

Re:a world without copyright

[Dorsai65]

when developing for a different market like China, it makes sense to use local knowledge of language and mindset of the people.

Considering the number of pirated copies of Windows reportedly in use in China, I think that's exactly what happened.

Re:a world without copyright

[Nutria]

The essence of civil disobedience is that you accept the risk of civil and criminal penalties.

Not only that, but MLK's civil disobeyors (is that a word, "one who disobeys"?) weren't the ones who burned Newark, Watts and South Central.

Re:a world without copyright

[RichardDeVries]

Spoken like someone who doesn't develop software for a living. My company (among other things) develops software. The sale of that software pays for our homes, electricity, computers, and the ability to continue developing programs that people need.

A programmer who claims he can only earn money by keeping the source closed is like a plumber who only wants to fix your sink when nobody's home and the door is locked.

Although I sympathize with your desire to keep your business running, I think that there should be more to it than just the black box you're selling your customers right now. I'm not saying that everything should be open source (I don't know how that would work out), just that your arguments sound a bit RIAA-like: locking everything down is better, because it forces people to keep buying from us.

Re:a world without copyright

[the_womble]

That's your problem. Some businesses go bust. Its called creative destruction and is essential to free market capitalism. Find another job or become unemployed.

How exactly would I be any worse off if "Bill had decided to pump gas instead"?

I'll go pump gas and you can live without it.

Can we know exactly what this software is so we can decide how terrible this threat is. I tried Googlong for your name and all I could find are open source and Ubuntu related stuff: i.e. your biggest impact on the world is through free software.

Re:a world without copyright

[Kjella]

If Microsoft couldn't make money from their software, and Bill had decided to pump gas instead, where would you be today?

This sounds a bit like saying that if Ford had to give away his plans to build a Ford, we'd still all be driving a horse and carriage. I'm not saying it'd be the same or necessarily great, but people might still end up paying for features because otherwise they wouldn't exist, companies would need software that support their business and support services around it, there's value in data mining, software as a service and so on. It might not drive the current commercial off-the-self or shareware market but it'd not like we'd still be trying to bang rocks together either. There are after all people being paid to work on open source today and there'd be lot more if there was no closed source.

It's not just on hardware but also on software there's a huge increase in value for money, a lot of the software you could charge for in the past is now free or much, much cheaper under competition from free. I'm on an open source desktop now and while far from perfect, and while we might argue if the year of the Linux desktop will ever come I would argue that it is substantially better than last decade's Windows and Office and Photoshop. Because of closed source, or despite closed source? I think despite, without it we'd have first tier support, much higher number of users and potential developers and so on. Basically, the world would have done fine. Maybe there wouldn't be as many software development positions as today but just like we now educate auto mechanics and not horse tenders, society would adapt. If that's what you wanted to do, I'm sure there'd be the opportunity.

Re:a world without copyright

[darkpixel2k]

A programmer who claims he can only earn money by keeping the source closed is like a plumber who only wants to fix your sink when nobody's home and the door is locked.

I think your analogy is a bit off.
It's more like a plumber that will only fix your sink if he isn't required to sit down and give you all the education, tools, and skills so you can go out and immediately start being a plumber yourself.

Although I sympathize with your desire to keep your business running, I think that there should be more to it than just the black box you're selling your customers right now. I'm not saying that everything should be open source (I don't know how that would work out), just that your arguments sound a bit RIAA-like: locking everything down is better, because it forces people to keep buying from us.

I think RIAA-like would be locking up the data entered by the customer, then charging them every time they want to make a copy...

Anyways--I am selling customers a finished product that was made through the long hours, years of education, and great ideas of developers. If I give them the source, anyone can immediately take the culmination of time, effort and ideas and duplicate it for as many people as they want.

With non-computer stuff, you're safe. You wouldn't be able to go out and buy a Gulfstream jet and start making no-cost-copies for all your friends. You can't go buy a Honda, and have it up on The Pirate Bay in 30 seconds. Imagine if you could? If Honda was only guaranteed a few sales before their car was 'torrented', do you think they would continue making cars?

Open source is great. I'm writing an open source product for 'IT Solution Providers' right now that will be going up against a well-established $25,000 software package that manages trouble tickets, SLA's, scheduling, etc...

The only reason I can write that product is because I have a *job* that keeps me well fed and a roof over my precious development machine at home. Because of that, I can spend a few free hours every weekend writing this package. But I couldn't have done it without closed-source, paid projects supporting me.

Re:a world without copyright

[darkpixel2k]

That's your problem. Some businesses go bust. Its called creative destruction and is essential to free market capitalism. Find another job or become unemployed.

How exactly would I be any worse off if "Bill had decided to pump gas instead"?

I'll go pump gas and you can live without it.

Can we know exactly what this software is so we can decide how terrible this threat is. I tried Googlong for your name and all I could find are open source and Ubuntu related stuff: i.e. your biggest impact on the world is through free software.

My name isn't on the products. ;)
It's under the name of the company I work for.

Re:a world without copyright

[darkpixel2k]

This sounds a bit like saying that if Ford had to give away his plans to build a Ford, we'd still all be driving a horse and carriage.

That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying what if Ford couldn't profit from selling their car because they couldn't patent or protect their ideas/designs...and they decided simply not to even build a car?

I'm talking about not having the incentive to even build a product, because someone requires you to give your hard work away.

I'll concede that Ford is a bad example though. If Ford makes a car and makes the plans available to everyone, big deal. You still have to buy the metal, equipment, assembly line, workers, etc...just to build the damn thing.

If I give you a copy of Windows, Office, the Linux Kernel, or a program I wrote--you just have to hit compile and wait for a few minutes/hours.

I like Red Hat, Ubuntu, etc... and their model. Free software, pay for support.

Funny thing is, that as an IT guy I support a lot of companies. I've never paid the for support for any of the free products...because I know how to use them, fix most issues, etc... That's what would happen if I released my app. I *might* get a few support contracts out of the deal, but most IT companies would just install my app and figure it out themselves.

Re:a world without copyright

[westyvw]

Not fighting with vendors about their crappy support for their half-assed software running on a poorly designed OS?

If mathematicians patented and held secret every theorem and proof where would you be today?

Re:a world without copyright

[Munden]

Copyright drives innovation. You have to take chances. You have no protection unless you have produced a substantially original work.

Copyright drives innovation. Then copyright becomes a hindrance to advancement in that particular innovation for Life + 70 years, more or less depending on country and field of copyright.

Re:a world without copyright

[RichardDeVries]

A programmer who claims he can only earn money by keeping the source closed is like a plumber who only wants to fix your sink when nobody's home and the door is locked.

'Only' is the key word here, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. As you point out, there are lots of good, valid reasons for developing closed source software, but hiding your source can't be the only basis for your income.

By the way, if I built a Gulfstream replica and sold it, I probably would get sued.

Re:a world without copyright

[darkpixel2k]

Not fighting with vendors about their crappy support for their half-assed software running on a poorly designed OS?

If mathematicians patented and held secret every theorem and proof where would you be today?

Don't expect me to pour time, money, and skills into creating something only to give it away. And if you think what I've done is half-assed with and I provide crappy support--build something better and provide awesome support. I'll go bankrupt.

Re:a world without copyright

[darkpixel2k]

'Only' is the key word here, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. As you point out, there are lots of good, valid reasons for developing closed source software, but hiding your source can't be the only basis for your income.

By the way, if I built a Gulfstream replica and sold it, I probably would get sued.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if the source to my application is *not* hidden, anyone can do what I do with zero effort. If the plans to a Gulfstream are available, someone still has to purchase materials, pay for assembly workers, healthcare for the workers, etc... 'Compiling' a jet costs lost of money. Compiling software costs almost zero.

Care to tell me how I can make money by spending months developing a program and then giving it away for free? I'm all ears. I love programming and I would do it for free if I could still keep a roof over my head. ...now if I only won the lottery...

Re:a world without copyright

[mlingojones]

The analogy fails in several ways.

Your RESPONSE fails in several ways.

First: Your house usually contains private stuff. Going to someone's house is more like breaking into his computer.

Since we're making an analogy about stealing code, not breaking into someone's house, it doesn't really matter what breaking into someone's house is like.

Second: If you take something away, it's not there any more.

Something like having exclusive use of that code?

And the argument that some people do something for a living doesn't tell you anything about if that should be legal. In the times of slavery, some people were trading slaves for a living. Professional killers kill for a living. By your logic, slavery and killing should be legal.

Well, technically that's a matter of opinion. But since (I hope) we're all of the opinion that slavery and killing SHOULD be illegal, I'll disqualify slavery and killing from the category of "real, tangible products" due to the fact that they necessarily violate another human being's rights.

Re:a world without copyright

[mlingojones]

For example, say he has naked photos of his girl friend in his house. Do you think he (or his girl friend) would be happy if a total stranger sees them? And I'm pretty sure the answer to this question has zero relation to the work he put into those photos.

Really? All it takes to make something immoral is that it makes someone unhappy? Well, shit, how happy do you think our hypothetical programmer would be if someone used his code without asking permission, paying him or giving him credit?

Great argument ;-) Especially since I haven't talked about words. I talked about effects. Namely the effect of something not being there any more.

You actually didn't address his argument, which was that scarcity isn't necessary for theft. As in, "copying code is still theft, even though nothing is technically *taken away* from someone". You are the one arguing semantics here, sir.

No. Not any more than by simply not using their damned code at all. They don't have a loss, they only do not get a profit. There is no basic right to get a profit from whatever you do.

Actually, if any money went into the code being written, then there IS a monetary loss. Not to mention time and hard work.

No, I didn't. I applied your argument to slavery and homicide, to show that the argument isn't valid. If you don't get the difference, you should take a course in basic logic.

Okay, this part is true. Since you seem to be so well versed in logic, let's apply YOUR argument to another topic to show that it's not valid.

Plagiarism should be legal! Why? Well, you're not "stealing" something, since the person from whom you plagiarized still has it after you plagiarize it. And there's no loss, there's only not a profit!

Re:a world without copyright

[RichardDeVries]

Care to tell me how I can make money by spending months developing a program and then giving it away for free?

I didn't say you could. Still, I'll bite.

The same argument has been made over and over by writers and musicians, and yet there are some of those out there that make money while giving away their work. If you'd seriously consider going open source, the 'while' is important. It's different from 'by'. Nobody makes money by giving away their work.

Some options to make money are to sell support, advice, custumization, books, t-shirts, talks or (most probably) get hired for something new as you've proven to be a competent programmer.

What's best depends on you, your skills, what you want and, of course, your product. I want to stress again that I don't say you SHOULD do this or that it would be a good idea in your particular case.

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

And no, we don't need to respect closed source-

You're quite right. Fuck copyright. Which is why I always advocate companies to take GPL code and use these free monkeys who write code for you as often as possible.

That aside, its interesting what passes for "insigtful" here. Looks like the mods are GPL cheerleaders. Simply asserting something doesn't make it true. You have to make your case.

Copyright exists. You want it abolished. State your reasons with an alternate model. Ofcource nobody really expects an anti-ms troll to come up with anything useful, so continue ranting about something which you clearly know nothing about.

Re:a world without copyright

[cerberusss]

What's wrong with ripping off code? If Microsoft rips off code from these people and these people rip off code from microsoft in return, both (and by extension the end users) benefit.

Nothing, but let's do an analogy.

During coffee breaks, you get one cookie from the cookie jar. Microsoft is always talking about how everyone who shares cookies, is not American, and brings his own. Doesn't share them. One day, he's very hungry, forgot to bring his own cookies, and decides to take one from the cookie jar.

Re:a world without copyright

[darkpixel2k]

The same argument has been made over and over by writers and musicians, and yet there are some of those out there that make money while giving away their work.

When was the last time you went to a the software equivalent of a rock concert? Every shell out $150 to get front-row seats to watch Linus write a patch for the kernel?

How do writers who give away their material make money? If they aren't making money on selling books, do they have day jobs pumping gas?

Some options to make money are to sell support, advice, custumization, books, t-shirts, talks or (most probably) get hired for something new as you've proven to be a competent programmer.

I'm skeptical of selling support. Has Red Hat turned a profit yet? I haven't checked in years. Is that money only coming from support contracts? Or is it from selling software as a service too? I haven't run RHEL servers in years, but when I did I never considered buying support. 99% of the time I could get assistance from the community and didn't need RH.

Same goes for advice.

Do you really think Microsoft (let alone the small business I work for) has enough customers who want t-shirts to be able to support their current infrastructure, staff, etc...? It would take quite a few t-shirt sales to cover the cost of 10 full-time workers, their health care, our building, the electricity, their computers...

Who is going to pay to hear me talk? I have nothing interesting to say. I write code for a living. I barely even want to hear Linus talk...or even Gates. About the longest IT talk I've listened to in the last year was Linus giving a Google Talk about git. I listened for about 15 minutes and closed it.

The last one is a bit recursive. You want me to program for free so people see that I am a good developer so I can get hired at a better job...for what? To program for free? For an even better job? Somewhere they money's got to come in to pay the average $35k/year. That's over 2,300 t-shirts... It's much easier to sell a packages piece of software (a packaged piece of my time, knowledge, and ideas) for $1,000 35 times.

What's best depends on you, your skills, what you want and, of course, your product.

That's where most people end up in this discussion. So far there's been no concrete way to support a business presented here. Just a few ideas and it gets left up to "What's best depends on you". I'll keep doing what's been proven to work. Sell the software. To be blunt, it's about dependency.

Someone either needs my software or will save time/money with my software. So they need me. And I need them to pay $x before I give them something that will save time/money.

If it's open source, they no longer need me, and I no longer have a bargaining chip for getting $x... ;)

I want to stress again that I don't say you SHOULD do this or that it would be a good idea in your particular case.

I agree that it should be up to the company to decide if they release their software for free or not. I personally love the open source model. I hope when I finish my initial work on the IT Solution Provider app that I'll get a few good developers contributing code and ideas to the project--because their contributions will help my company because we will use that same app...

Re:a world without copyright

[RichardDeVries]

You asked me how to do something I didn't say you should and I answered anyway. Of course it's very easy to kill of all of my little ideas, especially when you've decided beforehand you won't even consider going open source.

That's where most people end up in this discussion. So far there's been no concrete way to support a business presented here. Just a few ideas and it gets left up to "What's best depends on you".

That's what you get when you remain vague about what your actual product is. If you'd tell me exactly what you sell, I might be able to be more specific. I might even tell you to forget about open sourcing altogether.

If you would be truly interested, there are ideas to be explored here. T-shirts sound funny, but I'm sure Mozilla made a lot of money that way. Is Red Hat making money? Is Google? Is Slashdot? Mark Shuttleworth? Michael Widenius? Sun? Linus himself? If they are, does that guarantee success for you too? Of course not. But it isn't impossible either (again, depending on what you do). Also, having a closed source app isn't a guarantee for success either.

Re:a world without copyright

[totally bogus dude]

I think you're missing the point of pedantic argumentation. Basically: if you're going to make an analogy, make sure it actually fits. Having people point out mismatches between your analogy and the actual thing you're discussing may be annoying, but can also be constructive in helping to refine your own thinking.

Really? All it takes to make something immoral is that it makes someone unhappy?

The point was that it's not monetary loss that was the issue. The harm done is of an entirely different nature, so comparing it to breaking into someone else's house and taking whatever you want is illogical and irrelevant. Analogies are supposed to help us to understand things more clearly, but using an analogy that doesn't actually fit only muddies things. Is sexconker pissed off only at the potential financial damages that could result from having his code "stolen", or is it something else?

You actually didn't address his argument, which was that scarcity isn't necessary for theft.

This one I'm interested in, because I'm not able to think of a scenario where someone still has their "stuff" that I would be willing to call "theft". This is probably just semantics though; "theft" is often used as a shortcut for "copyright violation" or whatever would be more technically correct. Still, some people do get hung up on it, so if you're going to have these kinds of discussions it's probably good to have a response that doesn't rely on people agreeing with your casual usage of the term. Using terms like "theft" and "stealing" in cases like this is essentially slang: it's fine if the people you're talking to happen to share your understanding of what a "jive ho" is, for example; but if you don't know they do, you might be better off using less ambiguous terms.

Actually, if any money went into the code being written, then there IS a monetary loss.

No, there's not, not if the code is being copied. If they delete your copy and you no longer have it, then yes, you've lost the money that was invested in it; in the same way if you buy a new stereo and someone steals it, the money you spent on the stereo is gone, along with the stereo.

Arguably, what you've lost is your code's uniqueness. Suppose the stereo is a one-of-a-kind custom model, the only one in the world. A large part of its value to you, as its owner, is the fact that it is unique. This could be converted into a monetary gain in the future by selling it: presumably its uniqueness is attractive to other people as well. But even if someone comes from the future with a matter duplicator and makes an identical copy of your "unique" stereo, you haven't suffered an actual monetary loss, any more than you suffer a monetary loss if you buy a stereo at full price a week before the store has it on special for 50% off.

Plagiarism should be legal! Why? Well, you're not "stealing" something, since the person from whom you plagiarized still has it after you plagiarize it. And there's no loss, there's only not a profit!

This approaches the crux of the matter. What you say is true, and yet we still "feel" it's unacceptable behaviour. But why? sexconker was previously arguing that closed-source programs should be protected because people like him making a living from it. But obviously just the fact you can make money from something doesn't mean that it's something society should protect. After all, people make money from robbery, selling dangerous drugs, acts of violence, and all sorts of other things we'd prefer not to have people doing. This isn't to say that writing closed-source code is "the same as" beating people up for money; it's merely pointing out that "this is how I make a living" isn't a suitable litmus test for determining whether something should be legally protected.

Re:a world without copyright

[mlingojones]

I think you're missing the point of pedantic argumentation. Basically: if you're going to make an analogy, make sure it actually fits. Having people point out mismatches between your analogy and the actual thing you're discussing may be annoying, but can also be constructive in helping to refine your own thinking.

No, I realize the advantage of pedantic argumentation (although that's the first time I've heard the term), and I agree that the original analogy comparing stealing someone's physical belongings to stealing code is flawed, but there was no reason to compare the analogy to something else when he pointed out its flaws in the next sentence. I was just nitpicking because maxwell demon came across as really obnoxious :)

The point was that it's not monetary loss that was the issue. The harm done is of an entirely different nature, so comparing it to breaking into someone else's house and taking whatever you want is illogical and irrelevant. Analogies are supposed to help us to understand things more clearly, but using an analogy that doesn't actually fit only muddies things. Is sexconker pissed off only at the potential financial damages that could result from having his code "stolen", or is it something else?

This a fair assessment, since we can all agree (well, except maybe sexconker) that the analogy wasn't apt in the first place.

This one I'm interested in, because I'm not able to think of a scenario where someone still has their "stuff" that I would be willing to call "theft". This is probably just semantics though; "theft" is often used as a shortcut for "copyright violation" or whatever would be more technically correct. Still, some people do get hung up on it, so if you're going to have these kinds of discussions it's probably good to have a response that doesn't rely on people agreeing with your casual usage of the term. Using terms like "theft" and "stealing" in cases like this is essentially slang: it's fine if the people you're talking to happen to share your understanding of what a "jive ho" is, for example; but if you don't know they do, you might be better off using less ambiguous terms.

This issue *is* just semantics, as far as I'm concerned, which was what I was trying to point out, although that may not have come across clearly. A classical definition of "theft" may only cover something which was removed from its owner's possession, whereas more recent definitions may cover the copying of intellectual property and other such things. Dictionary.com lists both. Clearly there are more specific words or phrases for what occurred here, but for all intents and purposes I think "theft" or "stealing" conveys the meaning pretty effectively.

No, there's not, not if the code is being copied. If they delete your copy and you no longer have it, then yes, you've lost the money that was invested in it; in the same way if you buy a new stereo and someone steals it, the money you spent on the stereo is gone, along with the stereo. Arguably, what you've lost is your code's uniqueness. Suppose the stereo is a one-of-a-kind custom model, the only one in the world. A large part of its value to you, as its owner, is the fact that it is unique. This could be converted into a monetary gain in the future by selling it: presumably its uniqueness is attractive to other people as well. But even if someone comes from the future with a matter duplicator and makes an identical copy of your "unique" stereo, you haven't suffered an actual monetary loss, any more than you suffer a monetary loss if you buy a stereo at full price a week before the store has it on special for 50% off.

I did point out the uniqueness issue in my response to maxwell demon's other post, and it's not hard to see how the loss of that uniquene

Re:a world without copyright

[fredrik70]

compromise? GPL rests totally on copyright law, without it, no GPL

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Information is free and wants to be free. A program is just one large logic formula, and logics is a branch of mathematics. Mathematicians publish their results and can still make a living. So can do programmers.

Re:a world without copyright

[Spacezilla]

How about everything? If I don't' want to share my code what gives you the right to take it without my consent?

No one is allowed to steal my code by breaking into my house or hacking my server and I will do what I can to prevent that from happening. However, if someone obtains my code, one way or another, they can do anything with it that they want, because it's really just a big number, and I shouldn't be able to sue people for distributing a number, whether it's just one byte, like 0x2F, or millions of bytes.

So I should be able to sue the thief for breaking into my house, but not for putting my code online. The latter would be like if I had a painting hanging in my living room of the number "67". If the thief steals my painting, I can sue him for that, but if he decides to write the number "67" everywhere online, I shouldn't be able to sue him for that. It's just a number and it shouldn't belong to anyone, regardless of how big it is.

I have had data stolen from me in the past, and I only have myself to blame. I would never sell code with the disclaimer: "I like this sequence of 0s and 1s. If you feed it to your computer, it will do some fancy things for you. However, this is a very good number, and I made it up, so you're not allowed to give it to anyone else. They have to buy it from me."

This is of course what's done everywhere. People sell big numbers, known as software, which they then sue other people for distributing.

As it is now, you can't own small numbers, but you can own big numbers. Who set that arbitrary limit? It's certainly not very scientific: "Well, this number is short, so that's for everyone. Oh, you made a big number? Sure, let's sue anyone who shares that number online."

I don't believe that anyone should be able to own a piece of information or a number. I don't care how long my number is or how long it took me or cost me to make that number, it's still just a big number. That is why I no longer sell my code, but now sell my time as a developer instead.

Re:a world without copyright

[JohnBailey]

2nd largest share is misleading. isn't their market share around 10% (and a majority of that 10% also own a system with MS)? Apple is more of a countess...

About 3-5% worldwide.

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

There got to be a compromise that works for both the GPL and the RIAA, so end users (us) win.

That would be nice, but to the RIAA etc. 'compromise' means copyright expiry after 500 years rather than never, and life in prison for copyright violation rather than the death penalty.

Re:a world without copyright

[henrik.falk]

It's perfectly possible for a country to follow it's own laws and still breaking other countries laws. At least according to those other countries. A good example for this would be China that for the longest time didn't acknowledged Copyright at all.

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft was born by stealing code !!

Re:a world without copyright

[imakemusic]

If I give them the source, anyone can immediately take the culmination of time, effort and ideas and duplicate it for as many people as they want.

Maybe I'm just a stinking commie hippy liberal but isn't it kind of sad that that's considered a bad thing?

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

How about I take some code from your precious GPL'd piece of software and release a binary blob containing the code, while keeping the source to myself? Guess you wouldn't like that, would you? Well, guess what, copyright is the only thing stopping me from doing this. Still want to abolish it? Ooooh, I guess not, we should have copyright only for GPL software, right?

Re:a world without copyright

[Muad'Dave]

any way the winblows.

Wouldn't that be punctuated like this:

Anyway, the Win _blows_.

Re:a world without copyright

[oreaq]

But to make a living through his work and to build an estate for his family, the artist must have control over the use of his work.

That's how it worked the last 50 or maybe hundred years for some of the creative people. But it doesn't have to be this way.

I write software for a living. Somebody pays me for a component I have written and after that I have no control over the use of my work. My customer can do whatever he wants to do with it. As of today I have not starved to death and neither has my family. Oh ...and at least half of the code I write becomes free software and I do not get any pay for this.

Van Gogh didn't get any protection from IP laws, Disney does. Only one of them produced/ produces art.

Re:a world without copyright

[b4dc0d3r]

Brian May is an astrophysics Doctor of some type isn't he? What did Queen know and when? How did they know about radio GaGa? How did they write Bohemian Rhapsody to fit a movie that wasn't even scripted at the time? I bet they knew Freddie has gay before anyone else did. How could they have known that "Flash.... ohhhhhhh, saviour of the universe!" would be the most insidious earwig ever? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING!?

Re:a world without copyright

[b4dc0d3r]

Information is not aware of what it wants, and as far as I know we cannot ascertain its desires. I'd suggest not prefacing comments with this type of silliness.

It makes more sense to say that it's natural for someone to come up with a better mousetrap and then say "Hey y'all, look what I did." And then everyone uses the better mouse trap. "How silly for someone to ask for royalties on such an obvious idea!" one might exclaim. But if it were obvious, everyone would already be doing it.

The point is, people share ideas all the time, it's natural. Information itself doesn't sit on a hard drive yelling "download me!" It's just pure silliness, a catchphrase. But it doesn't sound so awesome when you say "humans naturally share ideas" does it?

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

any way the winblows.

doesn't really matter to me, to meeeee

Re:a world without copyright

[2obvious4u]

I don't understand why this is an issue. Writing code can be a service. It is for me. I work for a large company and I write code everyday. I get a weekly paycheck to maintain existing code and to constantly adjust it to business needs. I don't care who reuses my code since I've already been paid for it. I really don't understand why people think they are entitled to payments till the end of time for work they've already been paid for. You wrote it, you got paid for it. Done. It doesn't matter what happens to it after that. The only thing that would be nice is credit for the work so that way you can make future earnings and get credit for the work you've done.

Re:a world without copyright

[b4dc0d3r]

I develop software for a living. Here's how we do it. A customer wants something, we tell them to pay us a number of dollars. Pretty simple really.

If you're developing free software just because it doesn't exist, or you have an itch to scratch, or whatever reason, you are doing it for yourself and everyone else can benefit.

Developing software for a living means making a product people want to buy. If you want to create something and hope people buy it, that's your choice. If you want to develop on-demand, you can produce the functionality and still open the code.

Point is, traditional software companies make a product and then try to sell infinite copies. Developing software for a living means writing code that does something because someone needs that functionality. Those are two completely different things.

It's easier to make a product and put it on shelves or make it available for download, but that's business and marketing and all the stuff I hate. It's not software development.

There are lots of open-source projects which give away the code and sell support contracts. SAP makes money by selling a nonexistent package and then selling customization work. Shareware authors give away their work and ask people to send money in exchange for usage. ID releases source code for their old gaming engines when they have an improved version to charge for.

Now, consider that you develop functionality as requested by your employer. The circle is closed at that point, what they do with it is entirely up to them.

I would claim that basing your business model on selling something which is easily copied is a terrible business model. Analogous to music, give away the CDs but charge admission for the show. This requires that you get more work, instead of resting on your laurels. But you would rather sell a million copies of something than do more work, or at least your company would, right?

You can earn money just for writing software. Microsoft could easily take bribes to add or fix functionality. Right now they'd tell you to take a hike, but change the business model and now whatever you want Windows to have, it has. I'll pay one million dollars for this feature, $40k for fixing this, $20k for updating that.

Or another way, if everyone goes off development to pump gas, eventually someone would crawl begging PLEASE I have to have this software done, I'll pay anything you want. And now you get paid to WORK instead of to fill out TPS reports and monitor and documentation and blah blah.

Re:a world without copyright

[2obvious4u]

Bill has made 52 billion dollars. Microsoft could build the product and sell contracted support to just businesses and still make billions of dollars. They could then give away the OS for free for home users and still make money on support.

I too write code every day for a living and it pays my bills as well; however I make my money supporting a business that bought the code someone like you wrote. It just needs daily maintenance to meet changing business needs. There is no shortage of work for programmers and developers on the support side of products. If you develop a product someone is going to need support for it. As long as there is a business that sells a tangible good or service they will need software support from developers like yourself. We don't need copyright to protect our ability to earn money from software. You can make 6 figures supporting free software in business.

Re:a world without copyright

[RivieraKid]

Second: If you take something away, it's not there any more.

Something like having exclusive use of that code?

And the argument that some people do something for a living doesn't tell you anything about if that should be legal. In the times of slavery, some people were trading slaves for a living. Professional killers kill for a living. By your logic, slavery and killing should be legal.

Well, technically that's a matter of opinion. But since (I hope) we're all of the opinion that slavery and killing SHOULD be illegal, I'll disqualify slavery and killing from the category of "real, tangible products" due to the fact that they necessarily violate another human being's rights.

Right there, you've just destroyed your own argument. Having "exclusive use" of your code is not a "real, tangible product". The instant you sell or supply your code to anyone else, you necessarily lose the ability to have "exclusive use" of that code.

What copyright gives you is the exclusive right to control the copying and distribution of your code.

Now, what you almost touch on is that theft concerns "real, tangible products", not abstract concepts like software. Regardless of what all the armchair lawyers on Slashdot think, you cannot steal an idea. How many copyright cases do you think include the word theft? I'll give you a hint - it's probably zero. No, they use words like infringement and violation. The simple reason is, despite what they want you to believe, there is no such thing as stealing non-tangible concepts. The copyright owners know it, the courts know it, everybody knows it except the people who are taken in by Big Content's rhetoric.

Copyright infringement may or may not be immoral. It may or may not be unethical. One thing it is not, however, is theft.

Oh, one more thing - we've always been at war with Eurasia.

Re:a world without copyright

[darkpixel2k]

You asked me how to do something I didn't say you should and I answered anyway. Of course it's very easy to kill of all of my little ideas, especially when you've decided beforehand you won't even consider going open source.

I won't consider open sourcing all my software when all anyone can come up with for a revenue source for me is vague ideas that aren't really well thought out and make no sense. So once again--find a way to may money by giving code away for free and I'll do it.

That's what you get when you remain vague about what your actual product is. If you'd tell me exactly what you sell, I might be able to be more specific. I might even tell you to forget about open sourcing altogether.

I have a better solution that works regardless of what product I sell. Charge people for the product.

The company I work for sells a few applications that I think I can vaguely name without too many people figuring it out. One of them is a application used by dentists for tracking patients, insurance claims, x-ray data, etc... Most other vendors in that area are well established companies that also provide hardware service like installing dental chairs, x-ray equipment, etc... So they can easily drop the price of their application and make up for it by increasing the price of their hardware.

If you would be truly interested, there are ideas to be explored here. T-shirts sound funny, but I'm sure Mozilla made a lot of money that way.

If I were to say that we have 100 customers, how would selling each one of them 100 t-shirts replace the thousands of dollars per year we currently get from software development?

Is Red Hat making money? Is Google? Is Slashdot? Mark Shuttleworth? Michael Widenius? Sun? Linus himself?

Every single one of the people you mentioned falls into one of the following categories:
a) They are independently wealthy through inheritance, good business sense, or selling software.
b) They have another product they sell (like Google Ads or Red Hat and their subscriptions) that prop up the loss of time and money on their software development
c) Their employer has a specific need and pays them to take care of it. When they have free time, they can work on open source stuff.

If they are, does that guarantee success for you too? Of course not.

Correct. I may charge too much or too little for my product. I may be horrible at marketing. Whatever. But we're at the end of your reply and I still haven't seen a decent idea or business model for making money by giving shit away for free. (Maybe I'll get lucky and someone will anonymously donate $250,000 to my paypal donate button. That'll keep me going for a few more years.)

But it isn't impossible either (again, depending on what you do). Also, having a closed source app isn't a guarantee for success either.

Agreed. But the success of the closed-source for-pay applications at my company enable me to have enough free time to design and build an open source app that I think will benefit people.

If this situation happens enough, eventually there will be open source software for nearly everything. At that point, the business model might shift to every company having their own developer just to assist in maintaining/fixing open source software that they use. Like if you were Google and used Linux servers everywhere, you might hire half the kernel devs since their software is saving you significant money. (Hundreds of thousands of 'free' Linux machines while paying a handful of kernel devs $150k/year is small compared to those same machines having to run a $120 copy of Windows...)

Re:a world without copyright

[darkpixel2k]

Maybe I'm just a stinking commie hippy liberal but isn't it kind of sad that that's considered a bad thing?

Is this simply because it's software? Is it sad that I have to pay for a gallon of gas? Or food from the store? Should things simply be given to whomever needs it? I need a new TV--someone needs to make it for me free of charge.

Until you get rid of the basic human traits of laziness and greed, you will never live in a socialist Star Trek-like utopia. Sure Picard was cool, but not everyone gets to be a starship captain. You might get stuck with being the ship toilet cleaner.

Re:a world without copyright

[darkpixel2k]

Developing software for a living means making a product people want to buy. If you want to create something and hope people buy it, that's your choice. If you want to develop on-demand, you can produce the functionality and still open the code.

Sorry--that was my bad terminology causing confusion there. I'm not against building a product for a customer and giving them the source along with the completed product at all.

I would claim that basing your business model on selling something which is easily copied is a terrible business model.

Really? It seems to work well for the music industry, Microsoft, Apple, etc... When was the last time you saw a shareware author rise from a pauper to be a billionaire through their shareware development?

Re:a world without copyright

[Just Some Guy]

Spoken like someone who doesn't develop software for a living.

I'm not the OP, but I develop software for a living. My boss often lets me give away useful stuff I've written because it's not directly related to our business model.

My company (among other things) develops software.

Mine too.

The sale of that software pays for our homes, electricity, computers, and the ability to continue developing programs that people need.

Interesting extrapolation from this to the idea that every software company works on this obsolescing model.

If Microsoft couldn't make money from their software, and Bill had decided to pump gas instead, where would you be today?

Getting paid to write Free Unix software, most likely (the FSF coming from the Unix subculture and not dependent on Microsoft).

Would linux be where it is today?

Without all the targeted FUD from Microsoft? No. It'd probably be farther along.

Re:a world without copyright

[sexconker]

Hey moron, everything you said is completely illogical and wrong.

Do you think a programmer would be happy if you steal his code?

Do you think an artist would be happy if you steal his painting? Or a copy of it?

Do you think an author would be happy if you steal his book? Or a copy of it?

Do you think anyone would be happy if you benefitted from their labors for free against their will, regardless of the content?

The effect of something not being there any more? You mean like the money you would have paid for their code. "I wouldn't have bought it if I had to pay" ? Then sit down, shut up, and don't steal OR buy that code.

There IS a basic right to not have your shit stolen. There IS copyright. They exist for a reason. There IS a loss involved in you stealing someone's code. If you claim you would not have used it otherwise, then that's fine, go ahead and don't use it. But competing products are developed all the time with stolen code, the millions of cracked Windows installations put strain on the MS update servers, the millions of stolen copies of photoshop and flash have made content that has earned gobs of money.

If you think stealing someone's code doesn't hurt them because they didn't LOSE anything, then how the FUCK would you feel if you worked for a month and didn't get a paycheck? You didn't LOSE anything, moron.

You are a fucking idiot and I hope you make something one day and it gets stolen and you die of AIDS.

Re:a world without copyright

[jc42]

I'll disqualify slavery and killing from the category of "real, tangible products" due to the fact that they necessarily violate another human being's rights.

Ah, but 200 years ago, slavery was legal in the US and much of the rest of the world. It didn't violate the slaves' rights, because by the laws at the time, the slaves had no rights recognized by the legal system.

You've engaged in "ex post facto" legal reasoning, applying current law to a situation before the current laws were passed. This is explicitly disallowed by the US Constitution, and by the law in a good number of other countries.

Wikipedia has a good, readable summary, if you're interested. It also points out that the phrase used in English isn't grammatically correct Latin, and should be "ex postfacto", using "post" as a prefix rather than putting two prepositions before the noun (and the wrong case ending ;-).

Re:a world without copyright

[jc42]

... how happy do you think our hypothetical programmer would be if someone used his code without asking permission, paying him or giving him credit?

A few years ago, Sun got into some trouble with the Open Source community for this reason. The problem wasn't that they included a bunch of open-source code in their packaged products. That was legal and didn't require any permissions. The problem was that they stripped out all the attributions from the code. This didn't just get the programmers upset; it was a violation of the GPL.

Sun did apologize for that one, though it was a bit late to save their image in the programming community. But the fact is that it's standard procedure in much of the corporate world. I've worked on a number of proprietary projects, and in every one of them, my name was removed from the comments in all the code during the release process. Of course, I have no legal right to complain about this, so I didn't. But it does tell you a lot about how much respect the management of those companies has for their own employees' professional reputations.

It's also somewhat foolish, because if further work is needed later on, it's difficult to find the real experts on the code who could probably do the work fairly quickly. I've also seen numerous cases where not just my name, but part or all of the explanatory comments were also deleted. And in some case, I've seen later changes to the code by people who obviously didn't understand the (uncommented) code and could have been helped by my explanations. But it's pointless to try to explain such things to managers who order them; it just gives you a rep as a potential troublemaker.

(In at least one case, I was later hired to add to a project that I'd worked on. When I found the comments missing, I restored them from a backup copy that I'd kept. I was suitably bemused by the fact that when the new code went into their database, most of the comments again disappeared. ;-)

Re:a world without copyright

[mlingojones]

Ah, but 200 years ago, slavery was legal in the US and much of the rest of the world. It didn't violate the slaves' rights, because by the laws at the time, the slaves had no rights recognized by the legal system.

When I said "another human being's rights", I meant it more in the sense of moral, inalienable rights, not legal rights. We all believe people have the right to life, and to live a *free* life, which is why the application of sexconker's argument to slavery and killing was a good move, and clearly he needs to come up with a more specific (or just plain different) barometer for what professions should be legal if he wants to argue that point here.

Technically, one *could* try to redeem sexconker's exact argument as he stated it by saying that they believe slavery and killing should be legal. If one believes that, then maxwells demon hasn't come up with a suitable rebuttal for why something shouldn't be legal just because you can make a living from it. Of course, if someone believes that, we all know they're just a fucked-up person :)

Re:a world without copyright

[im_thatoneguy]

Exactly. Copyright protects one of the most valuable resources we own. Time.

It takes me time to create art/code. By taking my art/code without my permission what you're doing is profiting from my time without giving me anything in return.

From a pragmatic standpoint I enjoy the labors of closed source software. Open source only works when there is sufficient motivation to create a product. Most of the software I use only is usable because of the incredible amount of time and dedication given to the project. Often it's the product of one lone developer toiling away to create the perfect mouse trap. No one entity has the resources either to fund it. While our company would find his software useful we wouldn't find it $100k useful. Nor would it really be fair if we spent $100k and everyone else profited. If it was $100k useful then we would develop it in house and keep it as a trade secret so that we would hold an advantage over our competitors.

Closed Source Commercial software gives us access to tools we could otherwise never be able to afford to create or develop.

Re:a world without copyright

[mlingojones]

Right there, you've just destroyed your own argument. Having "exclusive use" of your code is not a "real, tangible product". The instant you sell or supply your code to anyone else, you necessarily lose the ability to have "exclusive use" of that code.

The "copying code necessarily destroys code uniqueness" argument and the "slavery and killing are not 'real, tangible products' argument were actually completely separate arguments. The former cited an example of something that is literally *taken away* from you (stolen) if someone copies your code; the latter was trying to disqualify his maxwells demon's examples for why "I can make a living off this" isn't a good barometer for something that should be legal—a point he was correct in making, but let's not get off track here.

Having "exclusive use" of your code (let's say "uniqueness"; totally bogus dude said that in his response to me and I think that's a better way of putting it) is not a "real, tangible product." The code itself is a "real, tangible product"; the uniqueness is a byproduct of having created something original. And yes, when you sell or supply your code to anyone else, your code is no longer unique. To create a website, however, you must place at least some code online where it is accessible by anyone. You could argue that this equates to "supplying" others with your code, I suppose, but most people do it with the reasonable expectation that it will not be copied. In this case, Plurk hadn't "sold or supplied" Microsoft with the code, Microsoft just took it. And in the case of software products like Photoshop, what is being sold is the compiled binary, not the code itself.

What copyright gives you is the exclusive right to control the copying and distribution of your code.

Yes, that's exactly what it gives you, and as a result of that you are legally guaranteed code uniqueness, unless you choose to surrender that right.

Now, what you almost touch on is that theft concerns "real, tangible products", not abstract concepts like software. Regardless of what all the armchair lawyers on Slashdot think, you cannot steal an idea. How many copyright cases do you think include the word theft? I'll give you a hint - it's probably zero. No, they use words like infringement and violation. The simple reason is, despite what they want you to believe, there is no such thing as stealing non-tangible concepts. The copyright owners know it, the courts know it, everybody knows it except the people who are taken in by Big Content's rhetoric.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: this just semantics. Whether you "steal" an idea, "copy" an idea, or "plagiarize" an idea, it all equates to the same thing. Furthermore, just because a classical definition of "theft" requires that something is physically taken doesn't mean that more recent definitions can't be expanded to include the plagiarism of ideas. For all intents and purposes, the word "theft" conveys the intended meaning effectively, even if a more specific word might be (slightly) more appropriate.

I don't think either of us have any idea what terminology is used in copyright cases—you yourself stated that they "probably" don't say the word theft—so I'll just leave that part of the argument alone.

Copyright infringement may or may not be immoral. It may or may not be unethical. One thing it is not, however, is theft.

Actually, according to Dictionary.com *and* Merriam-Webster, it is. But again, this is engaging in semantics.

Re:a world without copyright

[mlingojones]

sexconker, you are making it remarkably hard for me to defend you.

Stop (gratuitously) cursing, lose the derogatory names, and stop saying stuff like "everything you said is completely illogical and wrong." It doesn't help your argument, it just makes you seem like a douchebag.

You DO have some good points, but most people won't get them because they'll just write you off as a troll. And, if you'll look at some of your comments on this article, you'll notice you HAVE been modded down to troll.

Step back, cool off, and write without any of the insults. If your argument is strong it'll stand on its own.

Re:a world without copyright

[sexconker]

I don't give a shit what people mod me as - I'm right, this guy is wrong, and he's no more than a common thief.

Re:a world without copyright

[slackmaster2000]

You got paid to write somebody else's code. They made the monetary investment in the code, and you produced it.

To relate this to the topic at hand, how do you think the company would feel if the code they invested in was taken by a competitor and used to gain an advantage? The competitor made no investment, they just took it. You aren't hurt because you got paid, but that's completely beside the point.

Sure writing software is a service. You are providing a service to whomever you're writing the software for, even if it's for yourself. Services cost money. The problem is when a 3rd party benefits from a service without investing in the service. They gain an immediate advantage because, simply, they didn't pay for the service.

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

And the parent of this post is the be-all end-all to any and all arguments on the topic. If you are going to copy code, you must give credit to the oriniator/inventor. It is not to say copying is completely bad, but you must not lie about what you do.

Science is about standing on giant's shoulders. Not claiming to be the giant.

Re:a world without copyright

[garaged]

Licenses and law in general should always work to improve ALL peoples lives, not to create segregation and explotation. Unfortunatelly capitalism reflexes the human nature, and we are happy to accept it

Re:a world without copyright

[garaged]

Can you cite one art expresion that has been improved because of copyright ?? on even one art expresion that has improved since copyright exists ???, technology has evolved in the copyright/trademark era, but that doesn't mean it would have with out both of them

Re:a world without copyright

[garaged]

A lot of us would agree that the world would be a much better place if people would not feel the urge to depend on MS products, not that they're useless, just tipically there are a lot of better options, often free and open sourced.

Re:a world without copyright

[Nutria]

Unfortunatelly capitalism reflexes the human nature

As opposed to other economic systems, which are (overall) better in what way?

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I agree with your conclusion in general (that software should be freely redistributable), your argument seems weak.

The problem is that a piece of software is *not* just a number. Arguably, you could say the representation of it is ultimately in the form of a large number, but since the same piece of software could be distributed as both a Windows executable, and a Mac app (and those would be different numbers), it's pretty clear that the software is not identical to the number it's represented with.

Also, it's only a number in aggregate form. We as software developers are well aware of this: the machine code of the compiled binary has syntax and semantics, not just arbitrary bits. Saying that software is "just a number" is akin to saying that an English sentence is "just letters".

Just my $0.02 -- a good conclusion doesn't imply a good argument.

Re:a world without copyright

[santiagodraco]

You know, based on your logic, I have come to a realization! In reality NOTHING is "ownable". Really, consider. Everything is essentially comprised of atoms of one sort or another. Can you "own" an atom? A molecule? NO, the ideal is absurd! So really how can you own ANYTHING???

I mean, it's all just a string of molecules right?

Of course I might have a problem if I take your stuff cause you'd probably be pretty upset, and if you have a special configuration of molecules commonly referred to as a gun, you might just use it on me. Of course I won't understand why, I mean how can you be upset that I took your molecules?

How about another idea. Why don't you stop paying your bills. Why should you have to pay for those silly electrons that flow across the special configuration of molecules called a wire? Or why pay for that stream of numbers called a digital broadcast, it's just not right!

I have to thank you for opening my eyes. I can't believe I've been so blind all this time.

Re:a world without copyright

[euxneks]

...

Spoken like someone who doesn't develop software for a living.

I used to. Realized that I didn't like what I was doing (online advertising) then decided to pursue other avenues of money-making.

My company (among other things) develops software. The sale of that software pays for our homes, electricity, computers, and the ability to continue developing programs that people need.

Well that's good. My point is that it should be more like a book. You think open-sourcing something will automatically make people steal it? Something tells me you don't give your customers enough credit, or you think perhaps that your software isn't worth the price...?

My point was that if the software community were more like books (you still retain copyright, all source must be open), we'd probably have a healthier software environment instead of all this cloak and daggers bullshit. I know I'd still be buying software.

Now if someone wants to pay my car payment, house payment, electricity bill, buy a few new computers, etc...then sure--I'll develop and release software for free.

Hrm.. I wonder how authors pay for things in this day and age...</sarcasm>

But as long as I need to feed my family, I need to continue earning money. If I can't do that by developing software, I'll go pump gas and you can live without it.

Again, you're assuming you wouldn't make money if you open-sourced your application. I think otherwise - especially if everyone was required to open their source or be forced off the market. It would be really simple and easy to find people who are pirating your software... (and, let's face it, the ones who really matter when pirating your software are the ones who are paying for your pirated software to someone else - not the ones who just take it)

If Microsoft couldn't make money from their software, and Bill had decided to pump gas instead, where would you be today?

You really want me to answer this question? On slashdot? Really? hint: I'm an OSS and linux user through and through. This sort of scenario would be a beautiful haven in my opinion.

Would linux be where it is today? How about the iPhone?

See above. It's interesting that you use the iPhone, the OS upon which it's based is itself using open source (FreeBSD&NetBSD)! Fancy that.

Re:a world without copyright

[maxwell demon]

I'm a thief because I point out the flaws in your arguments? Very interesting logic.

Re:a world without copyright

[maxwell demon]

I hope [...] you die of AIDS.

You just proved that you are scum.Everyone who says or even thinks something like this is simply scum. Sorry.
No, you are not scum because of your opinions about copying. You are scum because of exactly what I quoted above.

I wish you that you don't die of AIDS. Not even scum like you deserves that. Instead I wish you to become wiser.

Re:a world without copyright

[maxwell demon]

Actually, if any money went into the code being written, then there IS a monetary loss. Not to mention time and hard work.

No. That money and work investment would have gone in the code even without anyone copying it. Things would be different if the copier told the author to write the stuff for him, and then refused to pay for it. In that case, the investment would be in direct response to the copier's demand, and therefore him taking the result of this work and investment without paying would clearly be bad (assuming the author doesn't allow it, of course).

Okay, this part is true. Since you seem to be so well versed in logic, let's apply YOUR argument to another topic to show that it's not valid.

Plagiarism should be legal! Why? Well, you're not "stealing" something, since the person from whom you plagiarized still has it after you plagiarize it. And there's no loss, there's only not a profit!

That's not my argument. I didn't argue that copying should be legal, but that the argument that copying should be illegal because the author would lose something is wrong. That doesn't mean there may not be other arguments against copying.

You always have to distinguish between the argument itself and whatever you can inductively imply about someone from the fact that he gives that argument. My argument was not an argument for copying, but an argument against an argument against copying, arguing that that argument is wrong. From the fact that I gave that argument you certainly can infer something about my opinions about copying in general (however, be careful not to overreach in your conclusion; always remember that it's inductive reasoning you're applying here). However, that's not part of the argument. It's well possible that my general opinion on this subject is wrong, without affecting in the least the validity of my argument.

Here's what you get when you apply my argument to plagiarism:

"The argument that plagiarism is bad because the person plagiarized loses money due to the plagiarism is wrong."

And I completely agree to that. The problem with plagiarism isn't money or invested work (although it certainly may affect your income). The problem with plagiarism is reputation.

Re:a world without copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright drives innovation.

LOL! Oh, I wish I could be so naive again.

Re:a world without copyright

[skeeto]

Spoken like someone who doesn't develop software for a living.

I develop software for a living and I don't require the restrictions of copyright to do it. It's all used internally to support our research.

Blame the Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/3072722004_0566d519e0.jpg

I assume heads will roll.

[WiiVault]

Oh the irony. I hope they get treated with the harshness they have shown to those caught "copying" their works. I also like how they say "copying" instead of "stolen" which I thought was their word for this sort of situation when it happens to them. Shoe on the other foot indeed.

Re:I assume heads will roll.

[afidel]

It's actually much worse then the copying that normally goes on with MS's own software, at least there it's at most only a lost sale at stake, here MS is ripping off a direct competitor and hoping to use the stolen code to compete against them using their monopoly power and large warchest to get started in that new venture.

Re:I assume heads will roll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Microsoft really that harsh about copyright? Have they sued anyone because of copyrights? I really can't remember hearing of anything like that. They even deliver security patches to unlicensed windows installations, because they know otherwise they would only hurt themselves.

Re:I assume heads will roll.

[Gadget_Guy]

Individuals in the company refer to their work being stolen, but official Microsoft statements and press releases are always more carefully worded and will talk about copying or infringment of copyright. Also, do you have any examples of Microsoft behaving harsher to others. If you copy their code in a similar way and then voluntarily cease and desist then they will not persue it further. Things go to court only if negotiation fails.

Re:I assume heads will roll.

[shutdown -p now]

If you RTFA, the decision to copy the code was not made by MS itself, but by an independent Chinese contractor that was hired to do the job. I assume that said contractor will now be heavily fined for breaking the contract terms (TFA: "This was in clear violation of the vendor's contract with the MSN China joint venture").

Furthermore, "Microsoft and our MSN China joint venture will be taking a look at our practices around applications code provided by third-party vendors".

Re:I assume heads will roll.

[daveime]

Prior Art

Doublespace vs Drivespace, where the only difference in the codebase was the 8 characters used for the MS-DOS filenames. IIRC drvspace.sys vs dblspace.sys

Re:I assume heads will roll.

[afidel]

Uh, both those were MS files. MS WAS found to have infringed on Stac Electronic's patents for disk compression, but there were no allegations of copyright infringement.

Re:I assume heads will roll.

[postbigbang]

You were listening to your iPod. Microsoft is pretty sticky about copyrights.

And while they've been boorish in other ways, owning up to the theft of code and withdrawing the site shows they respect the license and the breech.

I would venture to say that they're back to the drawing board.... again.

Re:I assume heads will roll.

[sjames]

Unless the BSA parachutes in and does an "audit"

Re:I assume heads will roll.

[cbhacking]

While I don't know how this extends to contractors, internally Microsoft has extremely strict regulations about use of open-source (even if not GPL or other copyleft) code. If it were somebody internal to the company, they'd probably be looking for a new job right now.

For a contractor, breach of contract conditions at the very least, and its unlikely they'll get any more MS contracts in the future. This sucks for them - there are a lot of small companies that make much if not all of their income doing contract jobs specifically for MS - but from Microsoft's perspective, those guys are now an object lesson to all the other small software shops out there, of which there's really no lack.

Re:I assume heads will roll.

[zmollusc]

Are that you, Denzil?

They're on a roll lately.

[Monkeedude1212]

I feel like accusing them of sleeping with my mother if I knew they would publicly admit to doing so.

Re:They're on a roll lately.

[dancingmad]

Son, there's something I've been meaning to tell you...

Re:They're on a roll lately.

[maxwell demon]

The monkey man is your father? Well, it explains your nick ... :-)

Wait....What?

[Sj0]

Just so I understand...

Microsoft takes responsibility for theft of code by blaming someone else?

Did I fail one too many English classes somewhere?

Re:Wait....What?

[DeadPixels]

They aren't exactly taking responsibility. Like the headline says: Microsoft Acknowledges Theft of Code From Plurk.

Re:Wait....What?

[HarrySquatter]

Microsoft takes responsibility for theft of code by blaming someone else?

How was their a theft of code? Did the original developers have all accesses to their code taken away? Secondly, there is nothing mutually exclusive about taking responsibility for not properly auditing code you take in from secondary sources and also pointing out who was the originator of the infringing code.

Re:Wait....What?

[ClosedSource]

Perhaps you'd prefer "Microsoft lies about being responsible for code theft".

They are taking responsibility for hiring a contractor who stole code. Blaming the person or entity that actually committed the offense isn't exactly a novel concept.

Re:Wait....What?

[ClosedSource]

The idea that "copying isn't theft" only applies when you copy music or movies. It doesn't apply to MS because .. ugh.. because it's MS.

Re:Wait....What?

[Jezza]

I kinda remember Microsoft themselves talk about people "stealing" Windows. Technically "stealing" isn't the correct word, it's like riding a train without a ticket, or sneaking into a ballgame. However you slice it then it's wrong. This is far simpler it's plagiarism. Of course, if the code had come from Windows then Microsoft would call it "stealing".

I wonder what they called it when the did it to Stac? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics)

Re:Wait....What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft takes responsibility for theft of code by blaming someone else?

How was their a theft of code? Did the original developers have all accesses to their code taken away? Secondly, there is nothing mutually exclusive about taking responsibility for not properly auditing code you take in from secondary sources and also pointing out who was the originator of the infringing code.

Hey, you are confusing the mob, [JS] forcing us to live in area between absolutes. BRAIN HURTS [/JS]

Re:Wait....What?

[HarrySquatter]

Of course, if the code had come from Windows then Microsoft would call it "stealing".

And all the same people calling this a "theft" of code would be decrying that Microsoft is using the word wrong. The point is that it's hypocritical to use terms in a way that you would claim is wrong for someone else to do.

Re:Wait....What?

[maxume]

If you read the first link in the summary and then apply your 'because I read it on Slashdot' analysis, you will see that Microsoft has taken responsibility.

Re:Wait....What?

[shentino]

They didn't copy code directly, but got "respondeat superior"-ifized into being on the hook for it.

Re:Wait....What?

[dissy]

Microsoft takes responsibility for theft of code by blaming someone else?

Being at fault and being responsible for are two different things.

For example, if one of my employees did something illegal at the company, it would be their fault for doing something illegal, yet I would be and would have to take responsibility for my employees actions.

I'm not saying that example is the case here (I don't know either way), but it is very possible to be responsible for something that is not your fault.

Re:Wait....What?

[Jezza]

If we're being pedantic (and I guess I started it) then it's accepted usage to talk of "stealing someone else's work" when what's actually meant it passing it off as your own (rather than depriving the originator of the work itself).

I'd agree "stealing" in this sense it's the same as taking a physical object, but you are still obtaining something you don't have rightful claim over. You could argue that has this code has a cost (someone's time) then it must have a monetary value, so appropriating it without consent IS stealing.

My understanding is the distinction is only relevant for English Law - where theft involves depriving the owner - other definitions seem to be far more broad. (I'm English - so my understanding of your laws maybe in error)

Re:Wait....What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think everyone knows what we mean when talking about stealing code or pirating software/music/movies. I don't get why so many people are upset about that. Language is just a tool to communicate with other people.

It's not like taking a perfectly understood phrase like "free product" and redefine that to something slightly unrelated, just to get an argument started.

Re:Wait....What?

[Opportunist]

So "it wasn't me, the trojan did it" becomes a working defense for Joe Everyday Pirate (sorry, dear MS-PR department, copyright infringer... or is it still pirating if someone else does it? Maybe hand out a roadmap to that topic) now too?

Re:Wait....What?

[huge]

Even though you meant this as a joke, the sad thing is I see that there are lots of people in /. that seriously think that way.

Dealing with the Chinese

[abigor]

I've said it several times before, and I'll say it again: dealing with Chinese vendors sucks. You never know if the code is original or not.

At this point, when I run into Chinese code when working with whatever client, I assume it's been copied from somewhere. Often I recognise it as such (Busybox, various http servers, etc.) When confronted, they either deny it, or simply wonder what the problem is - it's "freeware", after all, particularly after stripping off that pesky GPL at the top of each file.

Re:Dealing with the Chinese

[amicusNYCL]

I've said it several times before, and I'll say it again: dealing with Chinese vendors sucks. You never know if the code is original or not.

Yeah you do. It's not.

I realized how the Chinese think when I heard about the theme park they built in Beijing a couple years ago. They had several options. The most obvious is an all-Chinese theme, Chinese culture has so much history that there are so many things they could integrate into their own theme park to make a truly unique thing. The other option that comes to mind would be to license something from Disney or someone else, then you could sell all of the official merchandise, get cuts from other things, etc.

But they didn't choose either of those options, they chose a counterfeit Disney park. Everything looks (sort of) like Disney, but it's not, and they can't sell any Disney merchandise. They could have made something truly their own, or licensed an existing brand, but they thought the best choice was to make a counterfeit product. That gave me some insight into the way things work in China.

Re:Dealing with the Chinese

[desertfool]

Add Indians to that. I work with an Indian outsource vendor who used our policies and procedures, along with our home grown tools (which were not protected) to win a different contract.

It goes with the territory.

On the flip side, we used to share amongst ourselves. Now it is 'copying'. Might be a bit of racism at work, but it might be stealing as well.

There goes my karma.....

Re:Dealing with the Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

The Indian team we outsource with tried the same thing. They didn't get away with it and they won't be doing it again, I can tell you.

Re:Dealing with the Chinese

[zullnero]

I also have direct experience with this. For a short period of time, I worked in a team for a startup almost entirely comprised of Chinese developers hired mainly as interns under some shady L1 type of deal. (I don't even put this company on my resume.) The overwhelming theme is that the only way they can be successful is if their stuff works exactly like someone else's, and can be done super cheap and super fast. Cheap and imitative is pounded into their heads by management, and respect for licenses and other people's intellectual property is thrown out the door because the manager is always right. I guess it's the side effect of a culture that has been warped into a hyper-competitive assembly line mode of production in almost all aspects of industry.

Re:Dealing with the Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

To the Chinese, or anyone raised in a copyright worshiping environment, the idea of intellectual property is absolutely nonsensical.

Re:Dealing with the Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you didn't gain any insight from this because you stumbled across the relevant points but managed to miss them in your understanding.

Licensing doesn't work in China. Disney would want a cut of every ticket, every DVD, every soft drink cup, which means prices would have to be higher and profits for the park lower. Not just margins, but volume as well since they'd be competing with the knockoffs being sold across the street. And ultimately, they don't really have any pressure to get Disney's permission, so what is it worth?

They could have created something original and unique, but that would have cost more and would probably not be as marketable. They created this the way they did for the sole purpose of quickly and easily maximizing profits.

But who's to say this park isn't unique? Name one other in the world that can boast all these unlicensed properties and operates at this scale. It made the news precisely because you won't see this -- won't be able to see this -- in any other part of the world. China is the only place on Earth that has the resources to build something like this and at the same time completely disregard the concept of IP, to the chagrin of the world's richest and most powerful nations. Just because you don't like the manner of its originality and uniqueness doesn't mean that it lacks those properties. You just have to look under the surface. This park's existence represents China better than any collection of pagodas or whatever you would have them create. I for one appreciate the beauty of it, so to speak.

Fuck Disney.

Re:Dealing with the Chinese

[drinkypoo]

No, you didn't gain any insight from this because you stumbled across the relevant points but managed to miss them in your understanding.

Most of what you say is true, but it doesn't change the fact that the Chinese are total copiers. They have no qualms about it, whatsoever. When the Chinese enter any industry they do it by outright stealing IP. When they got into machine tools they started kicking out tools which were such a faithful reproduction of the originals that they had the same flaws. This is because they were utterly unqualified to make the tools themselves, and so they had to depend on popularity to tell them which tools to copy for export. They had none of the necessary skills to actually make their own; they didn't copy because it was easier, they copied because it was the only way they knew how to be competitive. The same is true today, because they have put the majority of their effort into copying. It's not the Chinese companies putting out the snazzy new silicon. In fact, most of the time that there's a hot new chip in China, it was copied wholesale from a US design which was fabbed in China. I worked for a company which had this happen to them several times. The same, of course, is clearly true of software.

China's authoritarian society is working against cultural and scientific development. I suspect that what enabled scientific development in China in the past was low population density. It's also the only reason they're not ruling the world by now, so I'm all for it. But don't pretend that China is capable. It is not. It is capable only of making bad knock-offs (even the counterfeit Cisco gear doesn't work right — I guess the Chinese counterfeiters can't afford solid capacitors) which are ultimately inferior. (Winnie the Poo, and Shrek too!) And many of the largest Chinese companies were all but created by foreign interests.

Re:Dealing with the Chinese

[amicusNYCL]

They could have created something original and unique, but that would have cost more and would probably not be as marketable.

Not be as marketable? You think a fake Disney park is more marketable than either a real Disney park or a unique China park? Even a China-themed licensed Disney park, selling official Disney merchandise, would likely bring in more tourism than a fake park. Both would be blown away by a unique Chinese park. You'd even get American tourists including the park in their vacation, I don't think a lot of tourists are going to want to go to Beijing and spend their time visiting a fake Disney park.

I understand the IP argument, but IP doesn't even enter into it for me, it's more about business sense. I look at that scenario with my western eyes and it looks like a counterfeit Disney park is at the bottom of the profitability ladder. I'm not even considering legal action, I doubt that would even enter into it. A unique Chinese park is a draw, a fake Disney park is "blah". The only advantage a fake park has is ease of construction. They hardly have to do any creative work, they just jump directly into manufacturing.

This park's existence represents China better than any collection of pagodas or whatever you would have them create.

You've got that right. I'm just not sure it's the image they want to represent.

Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibility

[NoKaOi]

While I'm sure this is a valid reason - that their contractors ripped of the code - is that an excuse to absolve them of blame? Hell no! MS needs to held responsible. What incentive do they have to prevent this kind of thing in the future if they aren't forced to take responsibility? And by responsibility, I don't mean blaming it on their contractor. This is a big "duh" that this is going to happen when you outsource to a country where the labor is cheap and cheating is culturally acceptable such that nobody gives a damn if they get caught. I've had to work with Indian contractors who ripped off code, which we identified thanks to just a little bit of diligence on our part because we actually want to know what we're releasing and charging our customers for.

Companies need to be held responsible for overseeing what their contractors are doing. Blaming the contractor != taking responsibility. That it was their contractors who stole might be the reason, but it is ABSOLUTELY NOT AN EXCUSE!

It's not theft...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

It's just "extreme outsourcing."

Can't beat the price, eh?

They stole the code

[Colin Smith]

Clearly they have to give it back.

 

This isn't "Microsoft's" fault

[Mr_Plattz]

So it turns out Chinese steal and pilfer IP from themselves as well. Not just the big US Corporations.

Anyone who doesn't truely understand how this isnt MSFT's fault hasn't worked in Corporate IT for long enough.

I hope the Project Managers and Developers are dealt with swiftly, but "Microsoft steals code"... I don't think so. I think you will find the real Developers in MSFT are offended that they are brought down by an under-evaluated project (why else would it be pawned off to China) run by a hand full of incompetent and unethical people.

Re:This isn't "Microsoft's" fault

[DeadPixels]

I believe Plurk is actually Taiwanese, though whether or not Taiwan is really independent seems to vary based on who you talk to. China obviously doesn't feel they are. Either way, it's mostly semantics anyway - just thought I'd point it out.

Re:This isn't "Microsoft's" fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, we all read our Newsweek subscriptions.

Re:This isn't "Microsoft's" fault

[lePooch]

Plurk is CANADIAN. The user base is Taiwanese, but it is originally based out of Canada. Link for proof

Re:This isn't "Microsoft's" fault

[Rogerborg]

Yeah... apparently everyone else knew that Chinese developers steal code unless you actively prevent them from doing it. Anyone who has worked with Chinese (or Indian) devs for more than 5 minutes also knows that they will lie to your face about it while they are doing it. I mean, they will actually look at you and smile and say they're writing original code as their fingers are busy stripping copyrights. Literally, in the literal sense of literally.

So... why weren't Microsoft aware of this? If you hire thieves, do you bear no responsibility for them stealing?

Re:This isn't "Microsoft's" fault

[oreaq]

If all "Chinese steal and pilfer IP" and MS does business with a Chinese company then they know that they will be getting "stolen" code and hence are responsible. Outsourcing is done exactly for this reason: to avoid local regulations and laws in order to get a cheaper product.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Quantos]

I have to agree on the point that MS definetely needs to step up their level of due diligence. Then I also ask myself why you would do business with a company that has a history of this behaviour. Doesn't anyone track and record what these sub-contractors do?(or is that like tracking a shoddy plumber?) Then MS did seem to get caught with the cookie jar again. When I was a child there were penalties for breaking rules. Come to think of it, there still are, unless you're a giant corporation it seems.

What...?

[TheSeer2]

So when /. is debating moves against piracy it'll yell "OH NO IT'S NOT THEFT IT'S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT" but if it's an MS article...

Re:What...?

[wampus]

How about the fucking headline, assjack?

Re:What...?

[Toonol]

The headline was written by 'adeelarshad82'. Please point out where that SAME ONE PERSON has advocated removing copyright for movies and music. Otherwise, please acknowledge the GP as correct.

Re:What...?

[wampus]

Wheel your goalposts out of here, doofus.

Re:What...?

[maxwell demon]

It wasn't just copyright infringement. It was plagiarism.
If I rip off gcc and sell it as my own compiler, it won't even help me if I distribute it as GPLv3. No proper attribution = plagiarism.

Re:What...?

[Anonymous Coward]

The goalposts never moved, moron. The thread OP shrieked his retarded crap about how "Slashdot" holds two contradictory positions. In light of your obvious reading deficiencies I will point out that those two alleged positions are "Copyright infringement isn't theft" and "Copyright infringement is theft when Microsoft does it". I told him to name one actual person who stated those positions. "The fucking headline" does not do this. Nor does the summary.

You are now going to admit that you were utterly and completely wrong. It is the ONLY thing you can possibly do at this point. The only choice in the matter you have is to pick one of the three possible ways to make that confession: the graceful and honest way (admit it openly), the craven and shameful way (say nothing), or the stupid and futile way (continue your inept attempts at defending a position that has already been discredited beyond all possible doubt).

Choose.

Re:What...?

[wampus]

Wow, some people really do get all worked up about the stupidest things. Trolling slashdot really is like taking candy from a quadriplegic.

Re:What...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so you've tried to establish "Um, I was, like, just trolling! Yeah that's it!" as an option #4. Sorry, but no. That falls under #2. You're not fooling anyone. You're trying to cover your shame and humiliation, and you're not even fooling yourself, let alone anyone with a functioning brain. You're a thousand times more "worked up" than you want to think I am.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[ClosedSource]

"When I was a child there were penalties for breaking rules. Come to think of it, there still are, unless you're a giant corporation it seems."

They've admitted that the code was copied and took down the site. What rule didn't they follow?

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Quantos]

I just don't think that volunteering to take your hand out of the cookie jar when someone catches you qualifies as doing anything to further the position they are in. It's just not the same as taking steps to assure us that this type of thing won't happen again.

transalted?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard of transfats, but TFA now refers to transalts?

Chinese government will execute the vendor

[SlappyBastard]

Sadly, I'm not sure I'm joking.

Re:Chinese government will execute the vendor

[shutdown -p now]

PRC, for the most part, has rule of law, and crimes for which you can be executed are explicitly enumerated. While they do use capital punishment for some things that no-one else does (e.g. large-scale fraud which incurs a lot of aggregated damage on the victims), I'm fairly certain that copyright infringement isn't on that list.

Re:Chinese government will execute the vendor

[thetoadwarrior]

Considering how much copyright infringement goes on in China, it's pretty safe to assume they don't execute people for it.

Re:Chinese government will execute the vendor

[SlappyBastard]

Large-scale execution in China frequently follow years of ignoring a problem. Look at the number of contractors who were executed after the Sichuan disaster last year. The Communist Party in China tends to think a massive over-reaction is the right response after years of neglect.

Re:Chinese government will execute the vendor

[cbhacking]

It's not the copyright infringement - it's the embarrassment of a major foreign business. I don't expect the contractor(s) to be shot for it, but that doesn't mean they'll walk away easy. The US is highly dependent on Chinese trade, but that doesn't mean the Chinese aren't dependent on us too. Anything that sends a signal to foreign companies against investing in China is going to be severely frowned upon.

Re:Chinese government will execute the vendor

[plasticsquirrel]

I read recently in China Daily that the fines for companies that commit copyright infringement are usually less than $10,000 USD. This is several times as much in relative terms in China, but still a slap on the wrist for companies here. However, if you knew how Chinese companies, government officials, and the police work together to keep each other happy, it would blow your little Slashdotter minds. Suffice it to say, it's all about give and take here, and then of course who you know.

This often seems like a society of people who collectively think copyright and IP is irrelevant, and don't have anything to fear from the armies of U.S. lawyers. There are different economic rules at play, and that's something that most people have not begun to really consider. Little real respect for artificial ownership over ideas and intangibles -- it's an interesting idea, and I don't know fully what to think of it or how it will play out. I have to wonder what will happen in the long term when the yuan starts to rise and China becomes even more economically powerful. If the U.S. can't rely on copyright and IP, that may be very damaging to certain U.S. businesses that rely on artificial scarcity (i.e. Disney).

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[ozmanjusri]

What rule didn't they follow?

I dunno, how about:

Checking before selling it to the public as their own?

Having systems in place to ensure their products aren't stolen property?

Having a corporate culture/pride/ethics that would make code theft unlikely?

It's not like this is an isolated instance of unethical behaviour from them, is it?

kdawson on Google News

[twosat]

This is the first time that I read a post on Slashdot from a link on Google News - kdawson you're doing well!

Re:kdawson on Google News

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done modding the parent as interesting, kdawson. You're doing well, you absolute fucking shitbag.

Maybe an insider job?

[gzipped_tar]

Could it be that Plurk bribed MS's contractor to pirate itself, hoping to generate massive publicity from this incident, and they did get it? Plans within plans within plans...

Re:Maybe an insider job?

[Monkeedude1212]

Unless Plurk was asked to hand over their code, I don't see how Plurk would have advanced Knowledge of MS Hiring a chinese contractor for that purpose.

Re:Maybe an insider job?

[gzipped_tar]

See parent post title. What part of "insider job" do you not understand?

Re:Maybe an insider job?

[daveime]

I understood it was JS code ripped straight from their website. So in fact, they *did* hand it over, in a manner of speaking.

Especially with client-side stuff, everyone copies everyone else, be is CSS, JS routines, HTML themes etc. And with Web 2.0 pushing the functionality away from the server side where it's relatively better protected (i.e. you only see the response, not the processing internals), it'll only become more rampant.

It would be interesting to see how much of Plurk's original matched other existing works online.

Re:Maybe an insider job?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be... inscrutable.

Re:Maybe an insider job?

[Monkeedude1212]

Is this insider job to benefit Microsoft or to benefit Plurk? Because they don't benefit each other by lawsuit, only one does.

He says that it's possible Plurk bribed the contractor. Why would there be a bribe If the contractor was part of Plurk? So if the contractor isn't part of Plurk, how can Plurk know of the contractor and bribe him?

Oh no, hypocrisy about word choice!

[Tetsujin]

So when /. is debating moves against piracy it'll yell "OH NO IT'S NOT THEFT IT'S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT" but if it's an MS article...

Well, the thing is Slashdot isn't a Hive Mind... It's made up of different people with different opinions... I couldn't tell you whether adeelarshad82 (the submitter of the story) or kdawson (the one who published it here) are guilty of the hypocrisy you describe... Mainly because I don't pay enough attention to either of them to know. :)

But really the same thing occurred to me. The use of the term "theft" seemed a bit misplaced here: I'm mostly in the "copyright violation is not theft" camp. I don't think "theft" is quite the right term for copyright violation personally, rather labeling it's just a way to enforce one idea of how copyright violation should be treated. It's basically an attempt to subvert the entire issue of how copyright infringement should be treated. So its use here isn't something I particularly support.

Re:Oh no, hypocrisy about word choice!

[Tim C]

Well, the thing is Slashdot isn't a Hive Mind... It's made up of different people with different opinions...

And yet, long-time readers like myself have learnt to recognise the same basic comments being made *and modded to +5* on articles time and time again.

There are patterns, and "filesharing != stealing" is an extremely strong one.

Re:Oh no, hypocrisy about word choice!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the point. The point is that the OP is suggesting that "Slashdot" is a monolithic entity displaying hypocrisy, when in reality it's merely a gathering point for thousands of people with widely varying opinions. Since in the latter case it is perfectly reasonable for two conflicting opinions to be expressed frequently, claiming that this somehow reflects badly on the group as a whole is dishonest and/or stupid.

Re:Oh no, hypocrisy about word choice!

[Tetsujin]

Well, the thing is Slashdot isn't a Hive Mind... It's made up of different people with different opinions...

And yet, long-time readers like myself have learnt to recognise the same basic comments being made *and modded to +5* on articles time and time again.

Another popular one (at least in recent years) has been pointing out logical flaws in arguments: over-reliance on anecdotal evidence, for instance...

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[BradleyUffner]

I just don't think that volunteering to take your hand out of the cookie jar when someone catches you qualifies as doing anything to further the position they are in.

You don't think this cost them anything? They suspended thier beta, losing any time and money spent on that so far. It's cost them bad press, and riled up the anti-microsoft crowd even more.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Anonymous Coward]

You hire someone to paint your garage. He does so, but he stole the paint from your neighbor. Who is to blame?

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Jarjarthejedi]

Good luck with that. When you've got a global database of all licensed code everywhere you can search against let me know.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Nutria]

Companies need to be held responsible for overseeing what their contractors are doing. Blaming the contractor != taking responsibility.

They (MSN China) acted in good faith by immediately pulling down the site.

What part of "We apologize to Plurk and we will be reaching out to them directly to explain what happened and the steps we have taken to resolve the situation. In the wake of this incident, Microsoft and our MSN China joint venture will be taking a look at our practices around applications code provided by third-party vendors" don't you understand?

As much as I dislike MSFT, I can't blame them for their reaction to this minor scandal. Though I would blame them for, in the future, again using that contractor...

Frakkin link it!!

[euxneks]

Goddammit PCMAG. Where the frak is the microsoft post? All links in the article are back to PCMAG articles!!

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[amicusNYCL]

Having a corporate culture/pride/ethics that would make code theft unlikely

How exactly do you propose that Microsoft force Chinese programmers to work according to their ethics? That's like MS opening a shop in Mexico and trying to explain to everyone that they no longer take naps in the middle of the work day, or opening a shop in Saudi Arabia where they get a vacation on Christmas but not Ramadan.

That's a horrifying thought.

[Dr. Evil]

That the RIAA world is somehow the polar opposite of some GPL world.

And that it's all about "us" users. The "end user."

The consumer

ugh.

UGH.

I am not merely a consumer, and I'm sure you're not either.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[shutdown -p now]

While I'm sure this is a valid reason - that their contractors ripped of the code - is that an excuse to absolve them of blame? Hell no! MS needs to held responsible. What incentive do they have to prevent this kind of thing in the future if they aren't forced to take responsibility?

As in any other case dealing with copyright, it's up to the rights holder to try to reach an agreement with MS on how they want to be compensated for damage caused to them, or to sue for the same thing. I suspect they would ask for a monetary compensation, and likely receive it, without this case ever going to court (as with this public admission, it would be pretty hard to defend against any copyright infringement claim).

Similarly, it's up to MS to sue the contractor for breaking the terms of the contract and causing damages to MS.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Quantos]

I'm not saying that it didn't cost them anything, look at all the egg on the face. It did indeed cost them something. But they would have looked a lot better had they caught it on their own, and then pulled the site down. Getting caught, that's never good. Aren't you supposed to audit projects like that to make certain that this type of thing doesn't happen?

The GPL relies on copyright.

[SanityInAnarchy]

You seem to be implying that this is what the GPL is working towards. It's not.

BSD licenses are far closer, but no one forces you to release stuff BSD-licensed, either. In fact, I'd imagine many people who contribute to BSD projects are as appalled by Microsoft's behavior here as you are.

And I've never heard Microsoft described as the "king" of software development before.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[geekoid]

And when it turns out the guy you hired to mow your lawn stole the fuel for the lawnmower, clearly you are at fault~

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I dislike MSFT, I can't blame them for their reaction to this minor scandal. Though I would blame them for, in the future, again using that contractor...

...or for using a different contractor who just so happened to have 60% of the same management as this contractor....

The evidence and logic is in the article

[Motard]

Here Microsoft had to take an infringing service offline - much to the benefit of the original inventors. If they were not infringing by copying code, they could've just taken what they wanted and crushed the inventors under their boots.

Intellectual property laws are meant to protect the little guy as much or more than the big guys.

Yes, this even covers code covered by the GPL(icense).

The Stac case had nothing to do with source code

[ClosedSource]

Stac never claimed that MS used their source code - they claimed that they violated their patent.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Chrono11901]

So every time you buy a car do you inspect every single part and serial number to make sure no parts were stolen?

By what fucked up logic should MSFT be held responsible when they themselves were ripped off?

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[MadCow42]

I would fully expect there to be some sort of compensation to Plurk - but maybe along with an NDA so they don't set expectations elsewhere. I also wouldn't be surprised if they just licensed the code from Plurk and got back to beta with their own site.

As much as I like MS-bashing, Kudos to MS for admitting it so quickly and taking a decisive move like taking the site down.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Quantos]

By the logic that it's not up to me to inspect a car purchase, that would be the dealership responsible for the fact of selling me an intact auto that is not made up of parts from a chop shop.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's an excuse, are you fucking retarded? If I hire someone to install a ceiling fan in my house, and he runs to my neighbor's house and steals one while I'm at work I guess it's "my fault" and I "need to be held responsible"? Absolute bullshit, don't be fucking stupid.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[RightSaidFred99]

Uhh, according to these angry dweebs: Microsoft. Microsoft is the reason someone stole paint from your neighbor. They are also at least largely responsible for global warming and for ugly nerds not getting laid.

Alain the Slashdot spammer is back!

[Anonymous Coward]

And still spamming. How many sock puppets are voting this asshole up?

The problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not that copyright exists, but the fact that it has been warped and extended far far beyond all reason. After 5 to 7 years, everything needs to be in the public domain. No exceptions, no exemptions, no extensions for any reason. And the RIAA/MPAA/publishers need to stopped from taking away fair use rights! Patents need similar reforms, plus the complete elimination of software and business method patents!

And if M$ admitted all the ideas and code that they have stolen, and pulled the products that contain the stolen code and ideas, they would be out of business at warp speed!

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[vondo]

Who says this is the end of the story? Plurk can settle or sue for damages. All MS has done with this action is limit those damages.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, if you plagiarized lines of code and put it into a file at your work and shipped it, would your bosses catch it? How does one go about checking all the source code in the world for plagiarism? Do you run every line of code produced at your business through some kind of search the world for code that reads like this?

This is typical slashdot being typically anti-MS. I'm not a PC user and I don't have any MS products, but the slashdotters are being particularly (and unfortunately characteristically stupid about this).

More like "mistress"

[patiodragon]

just sayin'

Microsoft STEALS code... nothing to happen...

[Nonillion]

Microsoft has been "stealing" code for a long time. Does anyone expect any "real" punitive measure for this?

I mean after all. Microsoft has been "borrowing" code, well, for EVER. Does ANYONE really expect anything different?

Re:Microsoft STEALS code... nothing to happen...

[fredrik70]

any proofs? WE all know that MS used BSD code for various things, and then there was the Stac SuperStor compression incident, but that' hardly worse than anyone else in the industry.

Re:Microsoft STEALS code... nothing to happen...

[Tim C]

WE all know that MS used BSD code for various things,

Which is specifically allowed by the licence, of course.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[cbhacking]

Considering how many small software companies there are who largely survive by contracting for giants (MS prominently among them) I don't really envision MS having any good reason to use this contractor again. There's an awful lot more options out there that haven't publicly embarrassed MS (and cost them a lot of money, no doubt). If anything, I'd expect MS to use this vendor as an object lesson in what happens if you don't follow the terms of the contract (MS has very strict policies regarding open-source code use).

Subcontracting

[bb84]

This is a great example of why outsourcing work overseas comes with many unexpected consequences. This is not the first such story involving MS lately. Overseas subcontractors seem cost-effective until you find out all the shortcuts they take, the often messy/crappy code and billions of other problems.

So keep the code

[Anonymous Coward]

So keep the code. don't share it. But it will be quite difficult to make money selling code without giving the code. The code is then worthless, but what you can do with it worthy.

So keep the code.

It won't be worth a penny. And that's what's lost when your code is "stolen": not a penny.

Lots of epic fail there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of epic fail there. And later. You fail to answer why source code is copyrightable yet movies (copyrighted) and books (copyrighted and songs (copyrighted) are out there in a form that CAN be copied and modified (screeners, clip shows, quotations, lyric fansubs, etc) yet there are still movie makers, authors and singer/songwriters making money, YET if you are a software coder, you cannot do the same.

Why are software coders (and I am one) by your lights so completely inept?

You fail to answer that in the above post and any followups you make.

PS the iPhone isn't software. And Linux is open source (which you think is impossible).

Remember: just because the code is out there in plain sight doesn't mean you have given up copyright on it, any more than Linux source has or the latest Harry Potter (written in plain english which is the source code for books in English speaking countries).

But MS are claiming copyright on the code

[Anonymous Coward]

But MS are claiming copyright on the code by having the code marked "(c) Microsoft Corporation". If 3 years down the line MS trawled the internet they'd find Plurk infringing on their copyrights and sue Plurk for copyright infringement. And, since they have oceans of money, would win.

That really IS theft. If MS hadn't been found out and hadn't themselves checked (fiscal responsibility, anyone?) then Plurk could find that the DO NOT OWN THEIR CODE.

THAT ***IS*** THEFT.

As in they don't have the code any more.

At least potentially.

Now it would be more accurate here to call it plagiarism, but that is far more serious and still not copyright infringement which you SCREAM "YOU NUTBAGS!!!!", demanding that this be called "copyright infringement".

So your assinine and childish tantrum is demanding that they stop calling it something it isn't and call it something it isn't instead.

Yeah, great improvement.

But palgiarism is far closer to theft than copyright infringement because the end result can be, with the legal system as it is ("All the Justice you can pay for") can be exactly that: you've lost your code. Just as if it were stolen.

If you hadn't been such a wanker over it I'd let it pass (the OP didn't go all nuclear option on the boards, you had to, though).

Re:But MS are claiming copyright on the code

[wampus]

Do you use drugs, Denny?

The minute the yuan rises, China will be less powe

[SlappyBastard]

China's economy is based on the fact that even the smallest American business can call some company with a plant in Guangzhou and have a freighter full of useless crap only Americans would buy shipped for practically no cost. The weak yuan policy is, in essence, a means of exporting unemployment to other countries by ensuring that China is the preferred manufacturer of cheap stuff. A strong Yuan means higher unemployment -- something the Chinese government is so deathly afraid of that they're willing to turn a blind eye to their giant stake in America's growing fiduciary irresponsibility. The last thing the Chinese government wants is a rise in unemployment, so the last thing they want is a string yuan.

Can we stop grilling them please?

[Chicken04GTO]

Props to MS for admitting fault and yanking the product. This is a good reason why outsourcing is not always cheaper.

no way

[triffidsting]

Microsoft admitting fault? It's a bit too early for the April Fools jokes guys!