[Thorrez]

>The company will consider civil actions for software infringement against those involved in CPC theft and mismanagement.

What is software infringement? Does it mean copyright infringement? Stealing a piece of hardware isn't copyright infringment, although maybe some types of reprogramming it would be.

Kind of funny. I've heard people call copyright infringement theft before, but I've never heard anyone call theft copyright infringement until now.

[mminer237]

I would guess that they're arguing that the first-sale doctrine of 17 U.S.C. § 109 does not apply since it was stolen, i.e., since they didn't legally acquire the hardware, they have no right to use any software thereon.

[teddyh]

What is a “right to use” of software?

[pc86]

If software is licensed, and you don't comply with the license, you don't have a right to use it. Seems pretty straightforward.

In this example, if you steal a piece of hardware with embedded software on it, it seems unlikely that you're licensed to use that piece of software.

[hansvm]

Seems like a stretch. The person interacting with the hardware need not know or care about the software. Under that same logic I think you could:

(1) Buy an alarm clock with an embedded chip

(2) Contained in the packaging was a link to a license agreement. You never read it and certainly didn't agree to it.

(3) A year later, weekday alarms are remotely disabled because you've used up your free trial. The license specifies $3/mo as the rate to continue being woken up on weekdays.

Courts are already not upholding a lot of this "reading this ToS constitutes agreement to all future versions" bullshit in modern software, and I doubt they'd be friendly to the idea that somebody can be beholden to a contract they had no good reason to even know about.

[mminer237]

In that case, I think you'd potentially have a counter-claim for breach of implied warranty.

In your scenario, the buyer wouldn't have a contract other than they bought the clock and it was implied to work as a clock. You could have a claim for breaking the device, but the first-sale doctrine gives you copyright protection regardless of what you do to the clock.

In the article, thieves have no contract, so they have no right to anything to do with the devices.

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

Have you seen the recent rulings out of the Supreme Court? They’re ruling off of their feelings and poorly justifying their conclusions by working backwards and making stuff up from whole cloth whenever necessary.

[Thorrez]

Examples?

[teddyh]

> If software is licensed, and you don't comply with the license, you don't have a right to use it.

What law is this based on? If you say copyright law, then how can I be in violation if I have not made a copy? If you say contract law, arguing that the license is a form of contract, then how can I be bound by it if I have not signed it, agreed to it, or even read it?

[mminer237]

Hmmm...that's a fair point. It would definitely be copyright law, but I'm not sure if it would actually work. I know downloading copyrighted material into RAM still counts as a violation, so the argument would probably be that running the software illegally copies code they have no rights to from storage to RAM.

[teddyh]

> I know downloading copyrighted material into RAM still counts as a violation,

Maybe in some jurisdictions, but I’m pretty sure many places exclude copies necessary for the operation of the software to not be violations of copyright law.

I mean, extend the same reasoning to web pages. Your web browser downloads a web page (let’s pretend this does not count as a copy). It keeps the HTML in an in-memory cache. The browser then sends the HTML to its internal renderer, which renders the page. Boom, a copy of the HTML (or at least a derived work of it) now exists in the renderer. Have you now violated the copyright of the page author?

[Thorrez]

But to use software you acquire, you have to copy it into your computer's RAM and maybe hard drive. That's relevant to copyright law. To use this hardware device you stole, you don't need to do that. So it's much less clear copyright law would apply. Reflashing the device with new firmware though, then copyright law could apply.

[teddyh]

> you don't have a right to use it. Seems pretty straightforward.

But why do I have to accept a license? I already have a copy of the software; what law says I can’t run the copy I have?

[pc86]

For the same reason "finders keepers" isn't codified law. By that logic, nobody is allowed to controls the means by which their software is run. You don't get to decide if people have to pay you, or if people have to have your permission first, or if they're allowed to (legally) copy it, etc.

[teddyh]

> By that logic, nobody is allowed to controls the means by which their software is run.

As far as I know, this is true.

> You don't get to decide if people have to pay you,

No law says I have to, AFAIK.

> or if people have to have your permission first

There’s no law I know which gives authors this right of deciding whether anyone has the right to run the software.

> or if they're allowed to (legally) copy it, etc.

Copying is regulated by copyright law. But once I have acquired a copy, what law disallows me from running that copy however I want?

[Thorrez]

How are you going to use it? You have to copy it to your hard drive, right?

[teddyh]

AFAIK, many jurisdictions have rules clarifying that any incidental copies, like installing it, or copying it to RAM, or to the various CPU and SSD caches, are necesssary for the operation of the software, and are therefore not counted as breaches of copyright.

If this was not so, copyright holders could sue all the router and switch operators in the world for copying pirated works by merely having the network packets temporarily in their packet buffers.

[gjvc]

relevant: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

[Karellen]

Scribbling all over a book and rearranging the pages isn't copyright infringement, no matter whether you stole it, so rearranging or modifying sections of copyrightable material in any other physical item shouldn't be either.

[tlb]

No, but if you made photocopies of all the pages, rearranged and sold them it would be. Modifying software almost always involves copying. Some (older) technologies like punched cards allow modification without any copying. But if you're loading firmware from a device onto your laptop and using an editor, there are plenty of copies being made throughout the process.

[yakak]

I think that is far more literal a focus on copying than the courts have, they tend to think in terms of whether you are expanding the number of copies.

I think courts sided with an artist that destroyed an original in transfers making one new work. I think they would also tend to side with firmware users that move/modify copies but don't expand the number of production units running derived copies of the code.

[bluGill]

More importantly courts are smart enough to realize that the act of copying a webpage to various caches on internet routers, then to memory of your computer, and your browser's cache files is not copyright infringement even though copies were made. It would be if you saved the source code in your browser and shared the webpage with others - but even then depending on details it might be called fair use if such a thing came to court.

[maxerickson]

The software for a given vehicle will be specialized for the engine and other powertrain components. It's likely that manufacturer tools and licenses are being used to change the programming on the stolen components.

[PaulHoule]

It's like modding a game console

https://mynintendonews.com/2022/02/06/us-government-wants-ga...