Re: "My dad is a pirate."

[Alexander Terekhov]

El Tux wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:19:37 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> > El Tux wrote:
> >
> > [... Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) ...]
> >
> > Oh dear El Tux, that (1985) was long before December 16, 1997, when
> > President Clinton signed HR 2265 -- the No Electronic Theft Act -- into
> > law.
> 
> Dear Alexander, that doesn't matter in the least because we're
> discussing concepts here, not legal definitions which, BTW, tend to
> use common words in uncommon ways. The poster cited a USSC judge's
> comment to support the *concept* that file-sharing is stealing, and I
> quoted another to show that not all USSC judges share the same
> view. Simple black-and-white cases rarely make it to the USSC so it's
> commonplace for the justices to disagree with each other. One can find
> a quote to support either side of just about anything that's been
> brought before the Supreme Court.

You brought up Dowling. 

All it shows is that, under a the language of a particular federal 
statute, the conduct of the defendant of making unauthorized copies 
of Elvis Presley records was not included. 

There is no reason why Congress could not have included what the 
defendant did within the National Stolen Property Act.  It didn't, 
but that doesn't mean that it couldn't. 

For example, Utah has a general theft (78-6-401 et seq) as part of its 
criminal code, in Chapter 6, "Offenses against property".  And in its 
definition of "property," the legislature included not only "real 
estate" and "tangible and intangible personal property" but also 
"trade secrets, meaning the whole or any portion of any scientific or 
technical information, design, process, procedure, formula or invention 
which the owner thereof intends to be available only to persons selected 
by him." 

So, in Utah at least, it is just as proper to say that a trade secret 
was stolen as it is to say that a car is stolen, since both violate 
the same statute. 

Copyrights and patents weren't included in Utah's penal code when it 
was revised in 1973, presumably because they were to be subject to 
whatever laws Congress passes. 

But there is nothing in the Supreme Court's opinion that would prevent 
Congress from including criminal copyright infringement within the 
particular act that was being considered in Dowling. 

End quote. Attribution: Lee Hollaar

Now please (re)visit

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju48724.000/hju48724_0.HTM
(COPYRIGHT PIRACY, AND H.R. 2265, THE NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (NET) ACT)

regards,
alexander.

--
"Notwithstanding Jacobsen's confused discussion of unilateral
contracts, bilateral contracts, implied licenses, "licenses to the
world" and "bare" licenses in his Appellant's Brief, the issue at hand
is fairly simple."

  -- Brief of Appellees (CAFC 2008-1001).