|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
You are correct as far as databases are a subset of compilations, but I still
don't believe that any of the case law refers to the structure of a database.
The non-literal elements protected in compilations generally are the selection,
coordination, and arrangement. The phrase "selection and arrangement" for
databases was used in Feist v. Rural and included in TRIPS. I
don't know what its earlier provenance might be, but it's two thirds of the
statutory definition of a compilation, an I think it unlikely that coordination
in its ordinary sense would apply to a database.
I agree that
working software is often a collection, but it is usually protected as a single
literary work. I believe that it is legally defined as such (again, straight
out of the treaties and the statutes) unless you specifically claim it as a
collection.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 05:40 PM EDT |
Also, the compiled code is protected in the same way as the source code - it
doesn't matter what form it's in, it's still a single literary work unless it's
claimed as a compilation. It all a "computer program" as far as the
law in concerned.
That's just another reason that copyright in software/computer programs makes no
sense. The problem is that to fix it you have to fix all the treaties, too
(aside from the problem of coming up with some other, more appropriate form of
protection).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
