Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 5 Aug 2002 at 13:16, Noah silva wrote:

Date sent:      	Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:16:26 -0400 (EDT)
From:           	Noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Well if you only copyright (register the copyright on...) binary code, I
> think we can assume the source isn't copyrighted, but treated as a
> trade-secret instead.  I think that if you want copyright protection on
> computer code, then you should have to supply the source-code to the
> copyright office.  Why?  Because the point of copyright is that when it
> expires, society is supposed to have the benefits of it, and binary code
> usually isn't so useful after many years.

Which argues that the lifetime of copyright must be reduced considerably for 
binary as opposed to source code or literary works. AND there must not be the 
protection of copyright for one and the trade secret for the other. As has been 
pointed out the purpose is progress....come to think of it...how does giving 
copyright to binary promote progress?  My mental processes are fuzzing out on 
that one...only a few can decipher it...so that's beneath the notice of the 
law...when copyright expires do people say "Oh want a lovely quaint Victorian 
style of poet?" or " look at the cellulite on that tacky cherub" No...nobody 
really cares. No progress here....I'm beginning to be skeptical of the claims 
that software is speech that deserves copyright but not that it is speech that 
deserves FA protection.

> 
>  -- noah silva 
> 
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, 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".
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Ernest Miller <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
> > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > 08/05/2002 08:34 AM
> > Please respond to dvd-discuss
> > 
> >  
> >         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >         cc: 
> >         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
> > 
> > 
> > Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> > > Almost -- a notice of copyright (no longer required under U.S. law but still
> > > helpful against an assertion of innocent infringement) should include the
> > > circled c or "Copyright", the author's name, and the date of 
> > 
> > > first publication.  If a second edition includes new material, the later 
> > 
> > > publication date applies only to the new material, so a notice might 
> > > include both dates.
> > > 
> > > For works of individual authorship, however, the publication dates don't 
> > 
> > > matter much, because the copyright term extends 70 years from the 
> > > author's death (unless the Eldred suit is successful in pushing that 
> > > back to life + 50, to be argued this October in the Supreme Court). 
> > > Works for hire run 95 years from first publication.  I'm sure we're all
> > > holding our breaths for the Windows 95 source code in 2090...
> > > 
> > > --Wendy
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Unfortunately, we still won't have access to Windows 95 source code in 
> > 2090 because there is no requirement for MS to release the source (as 
> > opposed to the executable).
> > 
> > Not to mention the anti-source code bill to be passed by Sen. Eisner in 
> > 2004 which, for national security reasons of course, prohibits access to all
> > source code except for properly licensed and government monitored businesses.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>