Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 5 Aug 2002 at 12:56, Ernest Miller wrote:

Date sent:      	Mon, 05 Aug 2002 12:56:41 -0400
From:           	Ernest Miller <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Well, I've always thought that source code would have to be registered 
> in order for the executable to be protected.

I agree but not just registered but publicly available. 
A copyright must be objectificable. One must be able to verify 
that one does exist and that it will END at a certain time
 (which is one reason I do not believe that life + N years is desirable. 
It is too subjective, laborious, and error prone. BTW- I am still pondering 
what a system or theory of copyright actually entails..objectifiable, 
verifiable, administratable, 
but mostly KISS seem to apply. )

Actually, the whole notion of copyright for software, for IC masks, 
etc may be missing one point. The proponents are not advocating 
copyright protection but protection via copyright. What we are talking about is 
protectionism. Of course this is not PC in an era where free trade, NAFTA and 
several butcher's aprons are the rage.Copyright is a monopoly. That's a high 
price to pay for something and it had better be worth it. As Wendy pointed out 
the protectionism on Windows 95 lasts far longer than it will be around. In 
deed, hasn't M$ proclaimed that it will only support its latest and greatest 
software at a yearly fee to promote the higher good?

The question I have is that we have whole theories and practices related to 
abandoned REAL property or abandoned Personal property (in LA Co. I believe it 
is under $10 keep over that turn into LAPD or sherriff) but what of abandoned 
Intellectual property? Unlike the former two, that is not localized but global 
in nature. Why should abandoned intellectual property be given a century of 
protection?

> 
> Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> > You know something....this source code stuff is the most dangerous thing ever
> > invented by the Human race. Forget fire, gunpowder, the hydrogen bomb, or
> > ICBMs, that stuff is a clear and present danger to life and civilization as we
> > know it. IT HAS TO BE  REGULATED AND CENSORED  ;-)
> > 
> > Actually you raise an interesting point. What is the source code? Under 
> > the law it gets copyright protection from when it is created yet never has to
> > be distributed or published. How can it be copyrighted if it is not released?
> > How can anyone even know what is being protected if they can't see it. THe
> > source code is more of  a trade secret in the possession of microsoft than
> > something that is copyrighted. Now the executable is copyrighted since it can
> > be objectively viewed.  SOurce code seems to be the ultimate in
> > "protectionism".
> > 
> > 
> > 
>