Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Arkain wrote:

> Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote in message
> news:V5Qj5.1$xt4.131123@dca1-nnrp1.news.digex.net...
> > So you think that there is no copyright protection for those parts of Mac
> > OS-X now lurking on Apple's programmers' hard drives?  Or a Smash Mouth
> > session tape on DAT?  Or a taped telecast of a football game?
>
> I think that copyright law is being used improperly to cover these things
> when the "letter of the law" specifically excludes them.

The "letter of the law" is dependent on legal definitions, and unless you know
what those definitions are (as in you being a law student or having read a
recent law dictionary) then you don't know what the letter of the law is, and
are arguing from ignorance, rather than knowledge (and no, that wasn't an insult
- consult a dictionary if you doubt me.)

> The courts have
> shown on several occasions that they lack the technical knowledge to rule
> properly on cases directly involving high technology.

I would, on the contrary, say that the courts have done an admirable job of
applying the law, as it is, to new situations. The problem is that you (and
sometimes I) don't like the result, and the consequences, but that doesn't
support your statement. For, you see, the only "technical knowledge" that courts
*need* to have, is technical knowledge that you and I don't have - of the law.


>
>
> > Parse the sentence again:  permanency of the copy is *not* what is
> required,
> > only permanency sufficient to allow perception, reproduction, etc.
>
> That it must be "fixed" in a medium is what implies the permanency. For
> instance, you cannot copyright a story that only exists on a chalk board. An
> inane example, I know.

How do you know that you can't? Have you tried to? Do you know of a case where
it has been tried and was refused?

>
> You know what? I'm going to help you out by telling you that all software
> with a "registered" copyright has been properly copyrighted according to the
> "letter of the law". At the same time I'm going to tell you that copyrights
> for non-registered software are invalid for the reason I stated before.
> Here's why. The Copyright Registration Office requires that software to be
> copyrighted be presented as printed source code before the copyright can be
> properly registered. That the software must be printed (i.e. *fixed* in a
> tangible medium) first proves that the software in it's native digital state
> is not enough to warrant a copyright. Therefore the laws need to be altered
> appropriately.

ROFLOL - give that post to a lawyer to read, he'll probably need a good laugh.

Roy

>
>
> Arkain