Re: [dvd-discuss] Patented copyright ...

["Roy Murphy" <murphy(at)panix.com>]

'Twas brillig when Richard M. Hartman scrobe:
> Now I see a flaw here ... sure, they own the copyright
> on the genetic "music" ... and if I play it on the radio
> I'll owe them royalties ... but if I make a drug based
> on the DNA sequence that has nothing to do with the encoded
> music ... or that would be my take on this scheme.

I see many more flaws than that.  Copyright protects expressions, not facts
or ideas.  Copyrighting an mp3 mechanically derived from a DNA sequence is likely
to provide only a very thin copyright on the musical expression embodied in
the "composition".  And that's only if they can get past the question of whether
there's actually any protectable expression present.  The "facts" present in
the composition get no protection at all.

What would such an mp3 sound like?  Hisses?  Randomly varying tones?  Would
a judge listening to the mp3 conclude that there's any protectable expression
present at all?

They're better off encoding the DNA as a computer program than as a piece of
music.

Roy "running off to the patent office to apply for a patent on the copyright
protection of DNA sequences in computer programs"  Murphy
 
-- 
Roy Murphy      \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses
murphy@panix.com \  http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html