Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

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

Very nicely done Frank. Now let's see if Arkain will admit his errors, or try to
continue this debate solely for the sake of debate. It would seem that he is a
frustrated would be lawyer. A classmate friend of mine in seminary was a member
of the bar of the state of Arkansas, and he told me that anything we wrote (such
as sermons and term papers) could be copyrighted, simply by saying so in the
document, or in the file, if we had it on our computer, even before it was
printed out.

Roy

Frank Townsend wrote:

> Well.
>
> Your principal argument as I understand it is that if a work is not fixed in
> a sufficiently permanent medium, then it is not properly covered by
> copyright.  Further, you argue that the definition of fixed ("a work is
> 'fixed' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or
> phonorecord . . . is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be
> perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than
> transitory duration") must exclude works on magnetic media because they are
> not sufficiently permanent.
>
> Finally, you argue that copyrights for non-registered software are invalid.
>
> All of these contentions are incorrect for the following reasons.
>
> First, the plain language of the statute does not require permanency, only
> permanency *sufficient* to allow a work to be perceived or communicated for
> a period of more than transitory (i.e. brief) duration.  This excludes
> things such as works of choreography not fixed in a medium (ie, a dance
> routine) or improvisations.  If you want to quibble about the meaning of
> "transitory" read the entry in the legal encyclopedia at Nolo.com
> http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/articles/pct/pct13.html
>
> "[T]he work must exist in some physical form for at least some period of
> time, no matter how brief. Virtually any form of expression will qualify as
> a tangible medium, including a computer's random access memory (RAM)."
>
> Second, even if you don't believe this comment, the Copyright Regulations at
> 37 CFR 202.20(a)(vii) regarding deposit specifically refer to software fixed
> in machine-readable format only:
>
> "In cases where a computer program, database, compilation, statistical
> compendium, or the like, if unpublished is fixed, or if published is
> published only in the form of machine-readable copies (such as magnetic tape
> or disks, punched cards, semiconductor chip products, or the like) other
> than a CD-ROM format, from which the work cannot ordinarily be perceived
> except with the aid of a machine or device, the deposit shall consist of:"
>
> Pretty clear that the letter of the law accepts as "fixed" (for the purpose
> of the statute) copies made on magnetic or other non-permanent media.
>
> Finally, I believe you are confusing copyright (which occurs at the moment
> of fixation) with copyright registration.  A work is copyrighted as soon as
> it is fixed, and registration is not required.  Registration does provide
> important benefits including the ability to sue for infringement (although
> one can register for that purpose after the infringement has occurred) and
> the ability to seek statutory damages.
>
> True, the Register of Copyrights requires hard-copy of identifying material,
> but (unless the source code is 50 pages or less) only a representative
> sample for larger programs.  And obviously, this requirement does *not*
> "prove that the software in it's native digital state is not enough to
> warrant a copyright" since the section quoted above indicates that such
> machine-readable copies are fixed, and if fixed, are already protected by
> copyright even without registration.
>
> "Arkain" <rwking@no.usa.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:39907939$1@hal.grnco.net...
> > Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote in message
> > news:V5Qj5.1$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 courts have
> > shown on several occasions that they lack the technical knowledge to rule
> > properly on cases directly involving high technology.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.