Indian Programmer Exposes Code Injection, Gets a Cease and Desist from Injectors

Post by wvenable » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 8:16 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #91

dkersten wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of whether or not it is, the article makes statements about how its " freely downloadable via any browser" and how "The crime, it seems, was the uploading of public code to a public repository". The point is that (legal or not), the code is not public and shouldn't be treated as such. No other code (eg javascript from all the HN starstups' web apps) that is downloadable is automatically "public code". Inno…

> The point is that (legal or not), the code is not public and shouldn't be treated as such. I brought a few examples (like antiviruses). How publishing security research even into the public repository with the code of malware that's involved wrong? Fair use should cover it. If it's indeed illegal, then all antiviruses are illegal too, because not only they publish - they redistribute that said code.

Post by wvenable » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 8:20 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #96

rosser wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair use doesn't remove a copyrighted work's protections. What ever gave you that idea? Think of it in criminal law terms: it's like the "affirmative defense" that having a medical marijuana card gives you in states that have such programs. Pot is still illegal, but if you get caught with some, and have a card (and are compliant with the restrictions of your local MMJ program), then the charges are dismissed. It does…

> Fair use doesn't remove a copyrighted work's protections. It doesn't remove them, it just says that that they aren't even applicable in that case. I.e. there is nothing to remove when it's not there to begin with. I agree that it's somewhat poorly defined that's why there can be different ways to view it. See https://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php Approach of "affirmative defense" doesn't sound logical to me. A…

Post by Rudism » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 8:22 PM UTC

Post by rosser » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 8:32 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #106

wvenable wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair use is a defense against claims of copyright infringement. In other words, claiming fair use will not keep the law suit from being filed but you can use it as a defense. It isn't a direct limit on copyright applicability. In other words, distribution of a copyrighted material isn't considered fair use until a judge says it is.

> Fair use is a defense against claims of copyright infringement. That's an interpretation of what fair use is. Another one says that it defines public rights, as in limiting the reach of copyright. I.e. it defines exceptions to where copyright applies (and this makes perfect sense to me, unlike the other interpretation). I.e. it defines uncopyrightable scenarios. The problem is that the law itself is not clearly def…

Post by shmerl » Wed, Jun 10, 2015, 9:25 PM UTC

rosser wrote: post #107

shmerl wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fair use is a defense against claims of copyright infringement. That's an interpretation of what fair use is. Another one says that it defines public rights, as in limiting the reach of copyright. I.e. it defines exceptions to where copyright applies (and this makes perfect sense to me, unlike the other interpretation). I.e. it defines uncopyrightable scenarios. The problem is that the law itself is not clearly def…

If copyright worked the way you seem to think it does, then the GP's scenario — where someone using a work under Fair Use terms could still be sued, and then has to prove that their use was legitimately Fair Use — wouldn't be the norm. But it is. So, there's how you appear to think it works, and there's how it works in the world outside your skull. It turns out, that things in the real world are sometimes sloppy, or…