> Not at all. An employee of yours might decide to copy it, you might accidentally expose it in the future, or whatever.
Employees (or anyone else for that matter) can be held liable for breaking contracts. And if my own negligence exposed my hidden code to the world, then so be it.
> It seems you're making the argument that only what you can keep secret is yours. But to align it more easily with reality, are you saying you'd be cool if I started copying your blog posts or the design of your site, which are published to the world?
Sure, if you're willing to do all that engineering yourself, go for it. I don't think it will pay off for you. (In tech it's better to differentiate.) Nor do I think will hurt my company. (Au contraire, it's likely an HNer will discover the copying and post about it, resulting in positive publicity for Siasto.)
I do not sell HTML, CSS, or JavaScript. I do not sell blog posts. I'm not in the content business, because I think it's a shitty business to be in.
> I don't have a major issue with this particular legal decision. I'm just taking issue with your notion that being the originator of content provides you with few or no rights over it. I really don't see any similarity with your street-corner analogy.
Being the originator of content provides you with a limited monopoly over it. It should not, however, make you all-powerful. As long as I'm not engaging in unfair competition (e.g. copying and selling your content en masse), you shouldn't get to tell me what I can and can't do with it. If I want to hold readings of your book in my home, or distribute free copies of your movies to my friends, then I should be able to do that. And if you don't like the fact that this makes your business less profitable, then get a better business model.
That's not too much to ask. Live performances make tons of money. So do movie theaters. And individual paintings by artists. Some forms of content production can be lucrative. I just don't like my rights as an individual being unduly curtailed simply to turn someone's poor business model into a good one.
I'm responding to you as an example of a certain line of thought that limits on copying are somehow infringing on your "right" to do as you wish with copyable content.
Where does this right come from? People have some intuition about stealing physical things, but many areas of law involve intangible entities. In your example of suing an employee for releasing source code in violation of an agreement, you are using law to effect an outcome that is every bit as abstracted as copyright law.
There is also an aspect of arbitrariness to most law that can be annoying but it serves a function.
Employees (or anyone else for that matter) can be held liable for breaking contracts. And if my own negligence exposed my hidden code to the world, then so be it.
> It seems you're making the argument that only what you can keep secret is yours. But to align it more easily with reality, are you saying you'd be cool if I started copying your blog posts or the design of your site, which are published to the world?
Sure, if you're willing to do all that engineering yourself, go for it. I don't think it will pay off for you. (In tech it's better to differentiate.) Nor do I think will hurt my company. (Au contraire, it's likely an HNer will discover the copying and post about it, resulting in positive publicity for Siasto.)
I do not sell HTML, CSS, or JavaScript. I do not sell blog posts. I'm not in the content business, because I think it's a shitty business to be in.
> I don't have a major issue with this particular legal decision. I'm just taking issue with your notion that being the originator of content provides you with few or no rights over it. I really don't see any similarity with your street-corner analogy.
Being the originator of content provides you with a limited monopoly over it. It should not, however, make you all-powerful. As long as I'm not engaging in unfair competition (e.g. copying and selling your content en masse), you shouldn't get to tell me what I can and can't do with it. If I want to hold readings of your book in my home, or distribute free copies of your movies to my friends, then I should be able to do that. And if you don't like the fact that this makes your business less profitable, then get a better business model.
That's not too much to ask. Live performances make tons of money. So do movie theaters. And individual paintings by artists. Some forms of content production can be lucrative. I just don't like my rights as an individual being unduly curtailed simply to turn someone's poor business model into a good one.