|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
I don't know anyone who doesn't think that software, deserves copyright
protection just like fiction does. I don't knowanyone who takes the bizarre
notion that fiction deserves patents. SO, except for the IP-fascist thought
control types, the public and the legislators are treating novels and programs
consistently.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
to make a long story short:
17 USC § 102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general
17 USC § 102(b)
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original
work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process,
system, method of operation, concept, principle, or
discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described,
explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
So there you have it. The rule is actually that software is
NOT copyrightable except for straight verbatim copying. This
statute was a very important part of Judge Alsups
ruling against Oracle in Oracle vs Google. One thing really
inconsistent about software copyrights is that no full
disclosure of the copyrighted material is required, this can
lead to the very problematic situation that copyrights are
granted for ripped off software, because nobody can check
the source code to see if it contains code that was copied
from elsewhere, for example from open source.
Patents are an entirely different thing. They "only" last
for 15 years, and they undergo relatively stringent testing
before being awarded, they also require full disclosure and
are also subject to challenges based on prior
art. Amongst other things.
Please note I am not a Lawyer. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 11:20 PM EDT |
Your Parry Hotter question is a good one. Copyright law
implements three contradictory principles:
1) Copyright covers "expression" but not ideas. You can
copyright a particular book about wizards, but not the idea
of a book about wizards. Harry Potter's author doesn't have
to worry about a lawsuit from the heirs of J.R.R. Tolkien.
2) Copyright protects against not only pure copying but also
copying-with-modification, and also "derivative works". A
movie adaptation, for example, is a derivative work. (So is
a translation to a foreign language.) You can't make a
movie about the character Harry Potter without the
permission of the author of the Harry Potter books, even if
none of the dialog -or even scenes- in the movie is copied
from the book. You generally can't write an unauthorized
sequel, either, though you might get away with it if you do
something "transformative"; see section 3.
3) Even if copyright law would normally forbid it, certain
copying, modification, and derivative works are permitted,
under a doctrine called "fair use" and under principles of
First Amendment freedom of speech. This is a complicated
subject, but as one example, a Parry Hotter book or film
would be permitted if it's obviously a parody meant to poke
fun at Harry Potter.
If your Parry Hotter book was not intended as parody, it
could get you into trouble under copyright law under
principle #2. The more closely it resembles existing Harry
Potter books (and yes, "structural" things like plot
outlines will count here), the worse your chances of
offering a winning defense. (Fundamentally, the more
blatantly you're trying to ride the coattails of Potter
popularity to make a quick buck, the more likely a judge and
jury will find ways to nail you. Copying-and-disguising-as-
you-go is still copying.)
Also, with "Parry Hotter" in your title, you'd probably get
into trouble under trademark law, which aims to prevent
"customer confusion". (Again, parody is exempt - no
confusion there since the similarity is the whole point.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
