[dvd-discuss]Does software really satisfy the requriments for Copyright?

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

As I drove home I pondered the fact that once again earthlink software has 
messed up. I've been told I need to restore it to its virginal state before it 
was tainted..<sarcasm> and reload everything and I will lose bookmarks, mail 
etc (no problem. been there done that and wont' do that again) but as I 
contemplated that on the systolic freeways I thought

"Why should software be subject to copyright?"

If I created the minimal program to open and display a file, it would have NO 
expressive content since it would be merely a mathematical optimization, albeit 
difficult to achieve. But having achieved it, it has not expression and so is 
not copyrightable.

THen I pondered the "functional" aspects....PDF, word95,word97,multimate, 
whatever are files...the programs that access them are function since they take 
the input and translate them to readable form. THese program provide the 
function to access information..What is copyrightable there? Function is a 
necessity. So is preparing food. So is wearing clothes. <OK they are optional 
in some places but sunburn, frostbite and death are problems in others> 
Recipes, fashion, these are not subject to copyright (or were not). .So how doe 
sthe function of software differ?

How does the function of software differ when it merely recreates something 
already done in a new way. It's as if a mechanical device recreates the 
function of another using well established princilples and parts. Nothing new 
has really been created, only a new way to do an old thing.

So how is software different? It uses words. Without understanding the dang an 
sich (thing in itself), people have thought. "literary works can be 
copyrighted...literary works are composed of long sequences of word put 
together to express a thought...software is long sequences of words put 
together to do someting...therefore...it must be copyrightable"...NOT SO. It is 
merely instructions for interpeting data...no more so than an dictionary of 
hyroglyphics, cuniform or kanji. It is grammer and an automated way of 
translating.

The problem here is that while the functional aspects of software would tend to 
not allow it 
protection under copyright the functional aspects of it should not deny it 
potection as speech. That 
seems to be the conundrum. Economically the desire is to protect software from 
copying to 
encourage the developement but copyright is not suited  merely because software 
consists of words, or even strings of "1" or "0" to be interpreted.

As Ernest has pointed out, maybe the problem is solved by getting copy out of 
copyright.