RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:43 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
> 
> 
> 
> 
> microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> This one piece out of order...
> 
> > ... the kind of editing that would be
> > necessary to transform database to a copyrightable work 
> would also negate the
> > utility of a database and 
> 
> If you define database narrowly to only mean a complete 
> transcription of
> offline records into online form, I agree.  I think the term is
> broader.  Back to the "Norton" example, Norton (check their 
> website) has
> decided (editorially) that "Spyware" like Gator et. al. is 
> not "a virus"
> and therefore won't include it in it's virus signature database, nor
> remove it (grumble, complain).  While the virus definition file *is* a
> database, it reflects a set of conscious editorial decisions on what
> does and does not constitute a virus.

Moreover, the issue of _how_ to describe the virus signature
also involves selection.  The 5th and 8th bytes?  The 12th
and 57th?  The combination resulting by adding the 38th byte
to 57 and dividing by 2?  Each "fact" in their database is 
a result of analysis and choice on the part of their
virus researchers.

...



-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!