There is no protection just because you are an employee following orders.
In either case, all of you can be sued individually.
No, you can't be sued individually for performing your duties as an employee. This can be true even if you weren't directly following orders. The doctrine is called respondeat superior, which stands for "let the master answer".
Of course this doctrine doesn't protect you from any criminal case which could be brought against you, and since you're infringing copyright for the benefit of a for-profit corporation it would probably be considered a criminal matter.
To answer the person's question, the only real way to protect yourself 100% is to refuse to commit the copyright infringement, and if you witness them commit it anyway, then to go to the police. This is a bit of a ridiculous reaction to the situation, if you ask me, but that's what the law tells you to do.
Now, the constitution lays out the job of the court; to enforce the constitution, even against laws written by the legislature.
Really? The constitution says this? I must have missed that part.
Even if you buy into your argument that the court refused to enforce the 5th Amendment, which I don't, that still isn't the same as repealing the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States isn't the only governmental entity responsible for upholding the Constitution.
If the court puts it on paper that they refuse to do that anymore, then they have rewritten it as surely as if they went to the national archives with a pencil eraser.
I'd like to see where they put on paper that they refuse to enforce the 5th Amendment, because I read the opinion and I don't remember seeing that part.
That's certainly something I would agree with, and most of the cases regarding EULAs have gone that way. ProCD v. Zeidenberg is the highly touted exception, but even that case doesn't really say that the contract was formed when the user clicked on "I agree". According to that case the contract was formed when the user bought the software, which was bought directly from the copyright holder. Like in an insurance contract where the details are often mailed to you later, the full details of the contract in the form of the EULA were not available until the buyer had opened the box.
Thus, if EULA's have any legal power, it is because you are disallowed from copying programs into RAM and run them due to copyright law.
Then EULAs don't have any legal power, because copyright law explicitly allows you to copy programs into RAM and run them without permission from the author. See the US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117(a)
Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided [...] that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
Actually, no, judicial review is what we just lost.
Just because the judiciary decided against the way you would have decided that doesn't mean judicial review itself has been lost. The judiciary reviewed the case. They found that the land was taken for public use.
I was hypothesizing that if you were to release your software only in binary form, your product (binaries) would not have any kind of protection if it were not for copyright.
Protection from what? Yes, you wouldn't have any legal protections from copying. That's for sure.
Consequently, many companies would not have incentive to develop software products. This would leave shareware/open-source as the only viable software development methodologies.
Well, there's still made-to-order software. And there's still software bundled with hardware. And then there's software which relies on contract law and/or DRM for protection. And there's always selling binary only copies and selling support and modifications to the software. So it's not just shareware/open-source that's left, though open source software would probably predominate.
Allow copyright, but only apply it to inter-legal-entities copying. This would mean that EULA's have no effect (You really shouldn't need extra permission from the copyright owner to run the copy you bought!).
EULAs are based on contract law, not copyright law. Restricting copyright law is only going to make EULAs worse.
Open source is great, forcing open source on companies isn't. If someone should decide not to disclose source for his program, that should be up to him, it shouldn't be up to the warez kids to scoop it up and claim "oh, but I am entitled to violate the contract because of my interpretation of the historical meaning of copyright."
Getting rid of copyright on software doesn't force anyone to disclose her source code.
But I was wondering about the bigger picture here. If the public at large condones such behavior and doesn't see it as a crime, should it NOT be a crime in the legal sense?
It really depends. Does the public really not think it should be a crime, or do they just commit the crime anyway and justify it afterwards? For example, most people try their best to pay as little tax as possible, even to the extent where they're going to "round down" some of their income and "round up" their expenses. But do people really believe that there should be no taxation? Very few do.
When it comes to downloading, there's also the fact that it usually isn't a crime. Copying is only criminal if it is done for financial gain or if you copy more than $1000 worth of stuff in a 180-day period. And this law itself was only passed in 1997, long after most of our moral beliefs with regard to copyright were already formed. Before 1997, copyright infringement was only a crime if you did it for commercial purposes, which fits much more neatly with the majority opinion on the matter.
Do I personally believe we should abolish copyright law? Absolutely. But I admit that I am a minority in this opinion, even in a place like Slashdot.
That's true, but the really harsh punishments are saved for the distributors, not the copiers. In fact, most copying isn't criminal copyright infringement at all.
So, for instance, sneaking into a for-pay concert and watching it isn't stealing, right? Nobody was deprived of anything.
Well, it's not stealing, it's trespassing. As for whether or not anyone was deprived of anything, depends in part whether or not the concert was sold out.
I think you need to acknowledge a basic moral issue here: Taking something that costs money and not paying for it is wrong.
What does it mean to take something that costs money? Surely making a copy of something which someone else is trying to sell copies of isn't necessarily wrong. For instance, if Microsoft is selling digital copies of the bible, does that mean it's wrong to get a digital copy from someone else who is offering it for free?
Does it matter to you that you're violating the terms proposed by the seller?
Not if you're not engaging in a transaction with the seller.
If not, why would it be wrong for me to violate the GPL by distributing a binary without source?
No, you haven't taken that right. You've infringed upon that right, but you haven't taken it. To take the right would imply that you now have the right. In otherwords, using the above definitions, it would only be theft if you stole their copyright, not merely infringed upon it.
Ah, I see. "Although indirect evidence for superfluidity in Fermi gases has been seen before, low-temperature physicists have been searching for definitive evidence in the shape of quantized vortices in a rotating gas." This is a much better article than the one pointed to by Slashdot. To say the scientists "created a new form of matter" is sensationalistic fluff. What the scientists did is prove that a fermionic consensate exhibits superfluidity.
That argument might make sense if it weren't for the fact that any Mac you can buy is both hardware and software. Sure, some people buy devices from Apple without buying any software. But some people also buy software from Apple without buying any hardware. The majority of sales though are Macs (and iPods), complete bundled packages consisting of hardware and software.
Base yes, ignorant no. I figured you hadn't made it up, and was mainly being sarcastic.
Go to onelook and try the word yourself. I would, before I accused you of making it up.
That's great, you would use onelook, I used answers.com, which didn't have that criterium in it.
If the government no longer feels that it is restricted by the constitution on how it performs eminent domain, it is indeed despotic.
I fail to see the relevance of that statement, since the government does still feel that it is restricted by the constitution on how it performs eminent domain.
To me, a world where eminent domain must pass judicial review under a public use standard is still a world with private property, because in practice, there's just not that much public use going on, and there aren't any other ways to build a road.
When you combine eminent domain with property taxes, I just don't see how you can say you own the land. You really just lease the land from the government.
But hey, if you think eminent domain which must pass a judicial review under a public use standard is still a world with private property, then we still have private property, because that's what we currently have.
You put the home on land. Doesn't mean you have to own that land.
Land is Real Property in the truest sense.
Umm, yeah, land is "real property" by definition. Of course, "real property" is one of the least real types of property. Just ask the Native Americans.
If I own a home, but not the land, then the home is not my property either, and it's contents are useless without it.
Well, it's true that it would fairly impossible to move most homes off one property and onto another, but that's why we impose the requirement that the government must compensate those who are forced to move under eminent domain.
The rest of your post is opinion, not fact, so I won't even address it.
Certainly you lose your rights for the duration of the applied sentence, but once you are released and your parole period is up you are once more deemed to be an up-standing, reputable member of society.
So call the indefinite period following release a "parole period", and there's no longer a conflict. I don't think you can draw a definite line here.
If a home and land isn't a tangible product of one's labor, then what do you propose is?
A home is, land isn't. Your parents didn't create the land.
Some other things that are tangible products of someone's labor: radios, computers, guitars, cars, bicycles. Just about any tangible item other than land.
The problem with your argument is, eminent domain has existed since before the very formation of the United States government, and it has never been unconstitutional. Whether or not this eminent domain can only be used for public uses, or can also be used for private uses is rather irrelevant to the question of whether or not one can have private property. If the government can take away your property and give it to the public, then how can you say that private property exists?
Slashdot Mirror
There is no protection just because you are an employee following orders.
In either case, all of you can be sued individually.
No, you can't be sued individually for performing your duties as an employee. This can be true even if you weren't directly following orders. The doctrine is called respondeat superior, which stands for "let the master answer".
Of course this doctrine doesn't protect you from any criminal case which could be brought against you, and since you're infringing copyright for the benefit of a for-profit corporation it would probably be considered a criminal matter.
To answer the person's question, the only real way to protect yourself 100% is to refuse to commit the copyright infringement, and if you witness them commit it anyway, then to go to the police. This is a bit of a ridiculous reaction to the situation, if you ask me, but that's what the law tells you to do.
Now, the constitution lays out the job of the court; to enforce the constitution, even against laws written by the legislature.
Really? The constitution says this? I must have missed that part.
Even if you buy into your argument that the court refused to enforce the 5th Amendment, which I don't, that still isn't the same as repealing the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States isn't the only governmental entity responsible for upholding the Constitution.
If the court puts it on paper that they refuse to do that anymore, then they have rewritten it as surely as if they went to the national archives with a pencil eraser.
I'd like to see where they put on paper that they refuse to enforce the 5th Amendment, because I read the opinion and I don't remember seeing that part.
Actually I don't see why you would think it is what happened. The court ruled that the 5th Amendment was being followed, it didn't repeal it.
Contract law requires that you sign a document.
No it doesn't. This is absolutely false.
Clicking I agree has no legal bearing.
That's certainly something I would agree with, and most of the cases regarding EULAs have gone that way. ProCD v. Zeidenberg is the highly touted exception, but even that case doesn't really say that the contract was formed when the user clicked on "I agree". According to that case the contract was formed when the user bought the software, which was bought directly from the copyright holder. Like in an insurance contract where the details are often mailed to you later, the full details of the contract in the form of the EULA were not available until the buyer had opened the box.
Thus, if EULA's have any legal power, it is because you are disallowed from copying programs into RAM and run them due to copyright law.
Then EULAs don't have any legal power, because copyright law explicitly allows you to copy programs into RAM and run them without permission from the author. See the US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117(a)
Actually, no, judicial review is what we just lost.
Just because the judiciary decided against the way you would have decided that doesn't mean judicial review itself has been lost. The judiciary reviewed the case. They found that the land was taken for public use.
I was hypothesizing that if you were to release your software only in binary form, your product (binaries) would not have any kind of protection if it were not for copyright.
Protection from what? Yes, you wouldn't have any legal protections from copying. That's for sure.
Consequently, many companies would not have incentive to develop software products. This would leave shareware/open-source as the only viable software development methodologies.
Well, there's still made-to-order software. And there's still software bundled with hardware. And then there's software which relies on contract law and/or DRM for protection. And there's always selling binary only copies and selling support and modifications to the software. So it's not just shareware/open-source that's left, though open source software would probably predominate.
Most software piracy is of games and other entertainment software, not stuff that's useful, so I guess that's OK.
Allow copyright, but only apply it to inter-legal-entities copying. This would mean that EULA's have no effect (You really shouldn't need extra permission from the copyright owner to run the copy you bought!).
EULAs are based on contract law, not copyright law. Restricting copyright law is only going to make EULAs worse.
Open source is great, forcing open source on companies isn't. If someone should decide not to disclose source for his program, that should be up to him, it shouldn't be up to the warez kids to scoop it up and claim "oh, but I am entitled to violate the contract because of my interpretation of the historical meaning of copyright."
Getting rid of copyright on software doesn't force anyone to disclose her source code.
But I was wondering about the bigger picture here. If the public at large condones such behavior and doesn't see it as a crime, should it NOT be a crime in the legal sense?
It really depends. Does the public really not think it should be a crime, or do they just commit the crime anyway and justify it afterwards? For example, most people try their best to pay as little tax as possible, even to the extent where they're going to "round down" some of their income and "round up" their expenses. But do people really believe that there should be no taxation? Very few do.
When it comes to downloading, there's also the fact that it usually isn't a crime. Copying is only criminal if it is done for financial gain or if you copy more than $1000 worth of stuff in a 180-day period. And this law itself was only passed in 1997, long after most of our moral beliefs with regard to copyright were already formed. Before 1997, copyright infringement was only a crime if you did it for commercial purposes, which fits much more neatly with the majority opinion on the matter.
Do I personally believe we should abolish copyright law? Absolutely. But I admit that I am a minority in this opinion, even in a place like Slashdot.
While not technically a theft, copyright infringement is a crime.
Only some forms of copyright infringement are crimes. Downloading for non-profit purposes, while illegal, is not criminal.
That's true, but the really harsh punishments are saved for the distributors, not the copiers. In fact, most copying isn't criminal copyright infringement at all.
I agree that they should lighten up, but at the same time, if you find something useful and use it on a regular basis, pay for it.
I thought subscribers had a little dot or something next to their name. Maybe I'm wrong, or do you just not find slashdot useful?
So, for instance, sneaking into a for-pay concert and watching it isn't stealing, right? Nobody was deprived of anything.
Well, it's not stealing, it's trespassing. As for whether or not anyone was deprived of anything, depends in part whether or not the concert was sold out.
I think you need to acknowledge a basic moral issue here: Taking something that costs money and not paying for it is wrong.
What does it mean to take something that costs money? Surely making a copy of something which someone else is trying to sell copies of isn't necessarily wrong. For instance, if Microsoft is selling digital copies of the bible, does that mean it's wrong to get a digital copy from someone else who is offering it for free?
Does it matter to you that you're violating the terms proposed by the seller?
Not if you're not engaging in a transaction with the seller.
If not, why would it be wrong for me to violate the GPL by distributing a binary without source?
It wouldn't be.
No, you haven't taken that right. You've infringed upon that right, but you haven't taken it. To take the right would imply that you now have the right. In otherwords, using the above definitions, it would only be theft if you stole their copyright, not merely infringed upon it.
Ah, I see. "Although indirect evidence for superfluidity in Fermi gases has been seen before, low-temperature physicists have been searching for definitive evidence in the shape of quantized vortices in a rotating gas." This is a much better article than the one pointed to by Slashdot. To say the scientists "created a new form of matter" is sensationalistic fluff. What the scientists did is prove that a fermionic consensate exhibits superfluidity.
You've just described (in very little detail), how a Fermion condensate works.
That argument might make sense if it weren't for the fact that any Mac you can buy is both hardware and software. Sure, some people buy devices from Apple without buying any software. But some people also buy software from Apple without buying any hardware. The majority of sales though are Macs (and iPods), complete bundled packages consisting of hardware and software.
How base, and ignorant, of you, to suggest.
Base yes, ignorant no. I figured you hadn't made it up, and was mainly being sarcastic.
Go to onelook and try the word yourself. I would, before I accused you of making it up.
That's great, you would use onelook, I used answers.com, which didn't have that criterium in it.
If the government no longer feels that it is restricted by the constitution on how it performs eminent domain, it is indeed despotic.
I fail to see the relevance of that statement, since the government does still feel that it is restricted by the constitution on how it performs eminent domain.
To me, a world where eminent domain must pass judicial review under a public use standard is still a world with private property, because in practice, there's just not that much public use going on, and there aren't any other ways to build a road.
When you combine eminent domain with property taxes, I just don't see how you can say you own the land. You really just lease the land from the government.
But hey, if you think eminent domain which must pass a judicial review under a public use standard is still a world with private property, then we still have private property, because that's what we currently have.
You put the home on land. Doesn't mean you have to own that land.
Land is Real Property in the truest sense.
Umm, yeah, land is "real property" by definition. Of course, "real property" is one of the least real types of property. Just ask the Native Americans.
If I own a home, but not the land, then the home is not my property either, and it's contents are useless without it.
Well, it's true that it would fairly impossible to move most homes off one property and onto another, but that's why we impose the requirement that the government must compensate those who are forced to move under eminent domain.
The rest of your post is opinion, not fact, so I won't even address it.
And this is a bad thing? Land should be distributed to whoever is going to use it most effectively, not whoever happened to squat on it first.
Certainly you lose your rights for the duration of the applied sentence, but once you are released and your parole period is up you are once more deemed to be an up-standing, reputable member of society.
So call the indefinite period following release a "parole period", and there's no longer a conflict. I don't think you can draw a definite line here.
If a home and land isn't a tangible product of one's labor, then what do you propose is?
A home is, land isn't. Your parents didn't create the land.
Some other things that are tangible products of someone's labor: radios, computers, guitars, cars, bicycles. Just about any tangible item other than land.
The problem with your argument is, eminent domain has existed since before the very formation of the United States government, and it has never been unconstitutional. Whether or not this eminent domain can only be used for public uses, or can also be used for private uses is rather irrelevant to the question of whether or not one can have private property. If the government can take away your property and give it to the public, then how can you say that private property exists?