News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour. Parent comment

Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by pithic on Friday May 27, 2016 @01:55AM (#11784165)
When a casual passer-by records, copies, and disseminates, no physical aggression is committed. The enforcement of copyright law depends on a third-party initiating a threat of force against property, freedom, and life to dissuade such actions.

Copying is non-violent, whereas preventing it requires violence. And where does copying end, and thought begin? If I examine source code, or lyrics, or a short story, reflect on them, talk about them, and use what I have gleaned, haven't I copied them to some degree?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by olalonde on Friday May 27, 2016 @03:26AM (#11784450)
Is that your libertarian rationalisation against copyright? Because with that kind of logic we couldn't have contracts either (breaching a contract can be non-violent).

> And where does copying end, and thought begin?

In the same way we decide when a person becomes legally major. We draw whichever arbitrary line seems to make the most sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by tremon on Friday May 27, 2016 @05:44AM (#11784892)
with that kind of logic we couldn't have contracts either

That a false equivalence, contracts are between two parties who both have no grant of violence.

[ Parent | on HN ]