RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 6 Aug 2002 at 9:46, Richard Hartman wrote:

From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
Date sent:      	Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:46:51 -0700 
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> ... 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> That's because software is generally much more like an invention
> that it is like a book or a piece of art.  Well ... some
> software.  Applications (e.g. word processors) are tools,
> and analogous to inventions ... but games, especially the
> ones w/ definiate story lines (e.g. Myst, Deus Ex) are
> more analogous to movies.
> 
> In truth software -- taken as a whole -- is neither animal
> nor vegetable, but something unique and a -new- form of
> IP protection (neither copyright nor patent) should be 
> developed.  Then the limitations, obligations and protections
> could be specified in a way that is appropriate to the
> medium.
> 
> I agree on the FA protection -- regardless of the 
> copyright/patent/other issue software _can_ be used
> to express ideas.  Note: it _can_, but it does not
> _always_ do so ... Deus Ex told a quite dark story
> of government & big business conspiracies ... and
> yet, what idea is expressed in MS Word or Excel?
> IMO Deus Ex would deserve 1st Am. protections, but
> Word?  Nah.

OK so if it,word, doesn't deserve FA protection because it's "functional" then 
is it expressing someting worth copyright protection as well? Kaplan would 
argue that it does.


> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!