Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

["Arkain" <rwking@no.usa.spam.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.

Arkain