[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges

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
        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