Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

Picky 
Picky 
Picky 

;-) 

 <as I attempt to restrain my snickering>...Now lets consider this 
hypothetical....

As Jeme has pointed out <repeatedly!>, if the sting of "1"s and "O"s are 
NOT expressing ideas, then they also CANNOT be copyrighted either, 
seemingly this court agrees.  Now...lets add a little more to this line of 
argumentation. Take waht TWI just put forth down under- DVD are 
"software". Obviously it's not source code but little "1"s and "Os"....So 
TWI has just presented a legal argument that EVERYTHING they release on 
DVD is not copyrighted. A good question is how the courts try to deal with 
that problem. 




Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/01/01 01:19 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret appeal


Hmmm.... It's not all good. It appears that the Court's reasoning is based 
on a
differentiation between source and object code. It based it's decision on 
the
source code form of DeCSS:

<quote>
If the source code were "compiled" to create object code, we would agree 
that
the resulting composition of zeroes and ones would not convey ideas. (See
generally Junger v. Daley, supra, 209 F.3d at pp. 482-483.) That the 
source
code is capable of such compilation, however, does not destroy the 
expressive
nature of the source code itself.
</quote>

Although, i have to ask, if the object code does not convey ideas, how can 
it
result in the improper disclosure of the trade secret?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com