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

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

I'm only pointing out the contradictions  and how adopting that path leads 
to some undesirable consequences for some big players (e.g. M$ and the 
DVDCCA). Actually, you raise another point. If copyright is to be applied 
to software then there must be originality in it. What's the originality 
in Windows? What part of the code? 

Prof. Litman is right. It's time that copyright be stripped back to the 
essence and purpose for which it was created and rebuilt removing the 
contradictions that fixating upon media, distribution, and business models 
have created (And get back to a sensible term for items!)




Noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/05/01 09:21 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

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


This is stated pretty clearly in copyright office guidelines.  You can
submit object code for copyright.  They can't verify it for origionality,
but how often do they really check for that with "human readable" code?

that's all there is to it.

Something doesn't need to be "speach" in the normal sense to be
copyrightable.  I would say that is C code is speach, so is Pascal code,
asm code, and object code.  They are just different compromises between
human and machine readability.  All of them can be followed by human or
computer.

Also, MPEG is data, I'm sorry, but it isn't a computer "program" in any
form of the word I know.  It's data interpreted by a program.  To me,
there isn't much difference between a movie DVD and a Video tape or a
still photo.  Should it be copyrightable, sure.  Its speach status should
be the same as a video tape.  The fact that it's represented with 0s and
1s has little to do with it's function or purpose.

 -- noah silva 

On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Michael A Rolenz wrote:

> Hey...let's take this even farther....anybody ever see source code for 
> Windows? I sure haven't. Has it ever even been published anywhere? Looks 

> like the only thing they go that promotes progress is sending out all 
> those CDROMs and disk images. All I've got are a bunch of compressed zip 

> files. Looks like "1"s and "O"s to me.....must not have ANY copyright 
> protection!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 11/01/01 01:59 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
> 
>         To:     Openlaw DMCA Forum <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Bunner wins DeCSS trade secret 
appeal
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> >  <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.
> 
> I should have finished this mailbox before replying. :)
> 
> You said it exactly right.
> 
> Where do they get off claiming copyright over something that is 
obviously
> not the expression of an idea?
> 
> (It CONTAINS ideas, but since it does not convey them, it is not an
> expression.)
> 
> J.
> -- 
>    -----------------
>      Jeme A Brelin
>     jeme@brelin.net
>    -----------------
>  [cc] counter-copyright
>  http://www.openlaw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
>