Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Sure the rules can be different, but why should they? The reason for punishing is the harm done.

I'd also argue that stealing code is depriving the owner the control of the code. The property interest is in the code in the non-tangible sense. It doesn't matter that I still have a copy.

This is especially true for code that is confidential. A lot of the value of Goldman's code is that nobody else knows it. Otherwise you can predict their trades, which can cost them money.

I just don't get the idea that millions of dollars of hard work can be stolen and it isn't a big deal because it's not physical. But everyone is okay when you throw a kid in jail for stealing a pair of Beats that cost 20 bucks to assemble.




> , but why should they?

Because it changes the nature of the harm caused.

Stealing a car is a crime not because the defendant has a car, it's a crime because the true owner no longer has his car.

Stealing code... the true owner still has it. And while there may still be harm, it's certainly of a lesser sort.

And in this case in particular, no harm occurred or could reasonably have occurred in any variation of the scenario.

This is a craftsman keeping a photograph of his work for a portfolio. Nothing more.

> A lot of the value of Goldman's code is that nobody else knows it.

If that's the value... then that code has no value.

> Otherwise you can predict their trades,

Then their trades amount to gambling, and I don't see why the taxpayer should have to pay for security for their vice.


>Stealing a car is a crime not because the defendant has a car, it's a crime because the true owner no longer has his car.

It's a crime because he has someone else's car. A property interest in the US common law system has always carried a right of exclusion and a right of control.

You are trying to limit it to just a right of possession.

>And while there may still be harm, it's certainly of a lesser sort.

Only because you insist that physical loss is always worse. Don't you think Goldman would be worse off if this code was taken vs. one of their cars? One is worth millions and the other several thousand dollars.

In fact, we have a very easy way of deciding which is worse. The economic damage is causes. That is actually how society judges how bad stealing is. Theft over a certain amount is worse than petty theft.

>This is a craftsman keeping a photograph of his work for a portfolio. Nothing more.

That is another matter entirely. I do agree the state should have to prove he intended to use it or disclose it to the public/goldman competitors.

It's sort analogous to borrowing vs stealing. Not every instance of taking without permission is stealing.


A property interest in the US common law system has always carried a right of exclusion and a right of control.

By that definition code is not property.


> It's a crime because he has someone else's car.

That doesn't make any sense.

It's a crime because the someone else doesn't have their car.

If he could somehow have the car and the owner still have it, then there'd be no harm. Arguably even no crime.

What you describe doesn't criminalize theft... it criminalizes possession.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: