|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 24 2013 @ 08:25 PM EST |
"taking and destroying" data is already covered in the CFAA under
unauthorized access causing damage.
What is not covered is taking -a copy- and leaving the original data
untouched, an undefined crime committed in most recent
high profile "hacker" cases.
What is also unsatsfactorily explained in case law is how the entire
value of the data is deemed to transfer from the owner to the taker.
Where JSTOR are selling copies of their data, having a copy "stolen"
does not prevent them continuing to sell copies at full price.
If only a few future clients prefer to go to filelocker.com for a free copy,
does the value of JSTOR's remaining copy fall to zero?
Aleynikov OTOH took a copy of his employer's tools of trade.
Assuming both were equally competent operators, then the value
of the software remaing in each hand should be equal. At what,
100%, 50%, of the claimed original value?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|