Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JeremyNT 100 days ago
> Your point being? You're just rambling assumptions about copyright and other things, which don't even track the actual law.

I'm replying to the post that claimed:

> If that’s how the court interpreted it, then the software industry is hosed, since that’d mean none of the generated code running in production right now is under any sort of copyright or otherwise protection, lol.

There is in fact "otherwise protection" for the software industry by... not distributing the code. They don't need copyright over the generated code if they vibe code a SaaS backend. Whether there's copyright or not is irrelevant for the business model.
1 comments
freejazz 99 days ago
Copyright is the strongest legal protection available. It does not have a state of mind element. Breach of contract is much more complicated and context-dependent.

>There is in fact "otherwise protection" for the software industry by... not distributing the code.

Copyright protects against reverse engineering in some circumstances, for example.

>Whether there's copyright or not is irrelevant for the business model.

Yeah, I'm going to continue to disagree with you as I'm actually a litigator.

link
JeremyNT 99 days ago
> Yeah, I'm going to continue to disagree with you as I'm actually a litigator.

OK, can you explain to me why this is a disaster for a vibe-coded SaaS? Why are computer access and/or contract laws insufficient and why would a vibe-coded backend be a huge risk?

I really don't understand where copyright on the code itself is necessary to protect these business models, and hopefully you can help fill the gaps.

link
freejazz 99 days ago
I didn't say it would be a huge risk, I just disagree that any of those features of the law cover what copyright does. They don't. If a trade secret is ever revealed, all protection is lost. Breach of contract is very complex compared to an infringement claim and would have to be negotiated. As a customer, why would I want to indemnify a software supplier? If there's no indemnity, it's not going to get anyone very far. CFAA basically requires that something get hacked so it's not going to cover the vast majority of scenarios...

>I really don't understand where copyright on the code itself is necessary to protect these business models, and hopefully you can help fill the gaps.

Well, did you ever try to understand? It's so exhausting coming to these threads when people are just making assumptions about how the law works without any regards to what actually happens, and then suggesting policy changes in response.

Here's a scenario - disgruntled ex-employee leaks the code. Now it's free for anyone to use because there is nothing you can do to stop anyone from using it because you have no rights in the code since the trade secret is broken. You can sue the employee. They are probably judgment proof, wont have a lot of money anyway, and will still not stop a competitor from spinning up the same exact thing.

Trade secret was your suggestion by the way... So do, you actually know how trade secrets work, or you just making things up??

link
JeremyNT 99 days ago
Listen, I did try to understand, but I don't know what I don't know, and I'm not an expert like you. It's why I'm asking you for help in this thread.

I'm a layman - I read up on the tools that existed and obviously got it wrong, so I really appreciate you filling the gaps.

link