[jakebasile]

It probably isn't strictly a legal obligation to return the physical disc barring stolen property stuff, but it would definitely be illegal to redistribute copyrighted code without a license to do so. Maybe you could claim some type of fair use but it wouldn't be transformative so I can't see how.

As for morality, I apply the golden rule: if someone found the code I wrote for a groundbreaking piece of software, and I didn't want to open source it, I'd really like for them to respect my wishes and return it.

Edit: I'm unable to reply further, but to clarify I was referring to the maxim of reciprocity or "do unto others". If the positions were reversed I'd want my property returned. If I find someone's wallet I'd return it if possible, as I'd want someone to return mine.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is my favorite Star Trek quote, but I don't think it applies in this situation as it was intended as a motivation for a personal decision to sacrifice, not to force someone else to sacrifice. That line of thought can get pretty dark pretty fast.

[scrollaway]

> I apply the golden rule: if someone found the code I wrote for a groundbreaking piece of software, and I didn't want to open source it, I'd really like for them to respect my wishes and return it.

Is that really the golden rule? What about "the good of the many"?

Returning it to Blizzard directly is good for Blizzard. Returning your code is good for you. Realistically, it has little monetary value (all the "value" will be spent on lawyers arguing what the value is), so maybe it's only good for you because it's simpler for you.

What if your sense of morality is not in line with everyone else's sense, and I'm returning code to someone who will not do "the moral thing" afterwards? Does that make me immoral?

Point is, this is not an easy decision at all. It's not an easy answer at all. I'd be petrified and I believe anyone else who spends time to consider the implications would be too.

[FooBarWidget]

> What about "the good of the many"?

That's like saying that robbing Bill Gates and distributing the money to millions of poor people is morally good because it's good for many people.

[jhasse]

Well taxes and social welfare are distributing the money of the rich to millions of poor people.

[casiotone]

I'm sure you'll be surprised to find that many people do think that would be morally good.

[Dylan16807]

That degrades property rights, so it's bad for the many.

Unless you systematically take most of the money away from billionaires, which could be totally justified if society wanted to enact such a tax.

In the case of 20 year old source code, there's not really an important norm to uphold.

[braveo]

Wait, so let me get this straight.

Your reasoning for that is "it degrades property rights", but you're for publicly releasing Blizzards property for "the good of the many"?

You want the source to be available and you're trying to back into it with some sort of moralistic argument instead of just admitting that you want the work to be available but have no real basis for it outside of personal preference.

Because that's what happens when you try and make a rational argument for why you just want something. You get ridiculous arguments like "it's not ok in this case because property rights, but it's ok in this other case despite property rights".

[tripzilch]

> Your reasoning for that is "it degrades property rights", but you're for publicly releasing Blizzards property for "the good of the many"?

just the information on the cd, obviously.

degradation of property rights has nothing to do with copyrights.

and suddenly it's very clear, if the round bit of plastic was very valuable (maybe it's gold, maybe it's the only copy), then yeah obviously you're doing right if you give it back.

after you made a copy.

[Dylan16807]

If you look at the other posts I made, it should be more clear.

There are different kinds of property rights.

The property rights for the money you have in your bank account are important. (But if we wanted to add a rule-based tax across everyone that would be okay.)

The intellectual property rights for recently-made things are important.

The intellectual property rights for 20 year old code are not at all important. It's okay if we file off that specific corner of the law.

[tripzilch]

"intellectual property rights" aren't even "property rights", they just confusingly use the same terms.

we had to invent copyright to mean anything at all, it didn't exist before. but even animals have some basic concepts about actual property rights (they can get righteously angry about it, for instance).

it's the word "property" in "intellectual property" that is misleading (deliberately, like the word "patriot" in "patriot act"). it's just a legal term, it didn't (quite) magically turn information into physical property when we came up with it (just one or two centuries ago).

[braveo]

and the property rights to my house are unimportant because the house is 20+ years old.

oh wait.... something is wrong with that thought process, but I'll let you split another hair in your attempt at a meaningful dichotomy.

[Dylan16807]

> Returning it to Blizzard directly is good for Blizzard. Returning your code is good for you.

To expand on this, it's good in general to return leaked code of active-development projects because that helps the social contract of turning work into something that can be sold. So if I found jakebasile's 2015 code in an alley, it would be in some sense good for everyone for me to return it.

But that doesn't apply to a 20 year old master for starcraft. There is no promotion of the useful arts in returning the CD in this specific case, and it's a hugely relevant cultural artifact.

[moftz]

If people want to promote the arts of game development, what does copying the code from a 20 year old game do to further today's useful arts? There are plenty of free game engines out there for someone to use and modify to build the next best game. Using buggy 20 year old code that can't run on modern computers doesn't really seem efficient.

[eridius]

So it's ok to take other people's property, as long as it's "culturally important"?

TBH this makes me think of the old practice of smuggling jade artifacts out of China. Hey, it's culturally important, so clearly that means it's ok for other people to take it, right?

[Dylan16807]

The "out of China" part is the problem there. That's a problem that's pretty much irrelevant to a question of whether or not to distribute copies of data files.

And I didn't say that cultural importance is an automatic justification. The new star wars movie also has cultural importance, but there would be large downsides to free-for-all piracy of it during its release year. Downsides that don't exist with 20 year old source code.

[yomly]

This is more like if an annotated original script of A New Hope were to find its way into the hands of a fan and s/he gave it back to Disney instead of copying it.

[eridius]

You don't have the right to determine whether someone else's source code is old enough that it's "ok" to steal. Not the legal right, and not the moral right either.

[Dylan16807]

Obviously I don't have magic law-changing wishes from a lamp. Are you telling me I don't get to have an opinion wrt lawmaking? Because that would be kind of rude and antithetical to a democratic government.

[wtetzner]

> Returning it to Blizzard directly is good for Blizzard. I'm not even sure if that's true. It's not like Blizzard didn't already have the source code.

If some distributed the source code, what would happen? It's not like people could start releasing new StarCraft games to compete with Blizzard. And it seems unlikely that the source code is going to give someone some kind of an advantage it creating other competing games against Blizzard.

Obviously legally it's Blizzard's right to keep the code private, and there are times where it's advantageous to do so, but this doesn't really seem like one of those times.

[moftz]

Someone could just reskin assets, change dialog, etc and revamp Starcraft into any RTS game. The AI and game code is what is really important for Blizzard to retain. It isn't the idea that people will compile Starcraft (Blizzard has released the game for free), it's the possibility that someone may profit off of all of Blizzard's efforts in writing the backend code for the game. I think it seems very likely that there would be a sudden influx of Starcraft clones and other RTS games made from the engine flooding every app store. Blizzard doesn't want people making money off their IP, plain and simple.

[wtetzner]

> I think it seems very likely that there would be a sudden influx of Starcraft clones and other RTS games made from the engine flooding every app store.

I don't see why. Even if the code was leaked, it would still be illegal for people to use that code. Blizzard still owns the copyright, and I doubt it would be hard to show that a game was just StarCraft reskinned.

> Blizzard doesn't want people making money off their IP, plain and simple.

I'm sure they don't, but it's not clear that it would have any real effect on them. If they've released the game for free, would it harm them in any way?

I don't know if it's right or wrong to distribute the source or to return it to Blizzard. Obviously it's against the law to redistribute it, but I'm not sure that it would be immoral. Mostly, I see a lot of half-baked black-and-white arguments in the comments on this article, and I'm just trying to point that out.

[csallen]

> As for morality, I apply the golden rule: if someone found the code I wrote for a groundbreaking piece of software, and I didn't want to open source it, I'd really like for them to respect my wishes and return it.

The golden rule is, like most other unilateral rules, an oversimplification. Of course, that's what makes it attractive — it's an effortless substitute for having to think through the complex and messy realities of any given situation. But let's not kid ourselves that something is automatically good because we would want that thing in Blizzard's situation, case closed.

[tripzilch]

> That line of thought can get pretty dark pretty fast.

so does "do unto others", if you follow it.

additionally you just argued that the same moral rules and rights that apply to you, a living breathing individual with an inner drive to enact right over wrong, can be transferred to an entire corporation, a legal construct blind to ethics unless forced by legal rules. which is kinda inhumane.

and, the golden rule is only a good moral yardstick if your choices in what you'd want to have others do unto you are moral in the first place. not a very nice thing to question, sorry, but your hypothetical example does feature you writing groundbreaking software but wanting to keep it closed source. depending on the software and how groundbreaking it is, that's an open question, very much up to discussion.

[Dylan16807]

> As for morality, I apply the golden rule: if someone found the code I wrote for a groundbreaking piece of software, and I didn't want to open source it, I'd really like for them to respect my wishes and return it.

What if you said that after the copyright had expired? Would you still say it's immoral to release it against your wishes?