Re: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't software

[Tom <tom(at)lemuria.org>]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 04:01:48PM -0800, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> Good points. Digital data can be viewed as a set of configuration 
> instructions for the computer (pixel 1 = black, pixel 1 = black...etc.) or 
> as configuration information for a state machine. I think the court didn't 
> want to deal with the other baggage associated with their definition of 
> software.

you've been exposed to too many von-neuman machines. :)

data and code may be interchangeable to some extend, but it still makes
sense to differ. if you have a program whose one and only purpose is to
display a fixed set of data, is there a reason to call it code? none,
besides sophistry.

now if the DVD would contain a general piece of code that would create
a movie in runtime, or display different ones, depending on which input
I give it, then the issue might be open for discussion.
by preceding every line I write with "print", I do not turn my writing
magically into code. yes, technically it is code. its intend, purpose
and sole content, however, has not changed.

yes, every kind of digital content can be expressed as a computer
program, by adding "print" to every line or by some more complicated
means such as an mpeg encoder.
still the CONTENT of the program is the same old movie. the movie mafia
doesn't receive a seperate copyright for the DVD version, does it? it's
just a change of medium.


-- 
http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
pub  1024D/D88D35A6 2001-11-14 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
     Key fingerprint = 276B B7BB E4D8 FCCE DB8F  F965 310B 811A D88D 35A6