Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
That's true, of course. I was responding, though, to the previous comment that copyright has no relevance if a work is not published. I must disagree with that view, for the reasons I stated. Copyright can be (and often is) used to prevent publication as well as to encourage it.
|
I'm sorry, that is true and I mis-edited what I was writing.
It *used to be* true that in order to copyright something written, it had to be registered. Like a patent, it had to be submitted to an agency and a copy had to be provided for the (eventual) public good when it would have fallen into the public domain. By "something written" I mean book-like
. I don't know about music and screenplays and theatrical plays, and the like...they _may_ have been considered copyrighted at the time of recording/filming/first stage production.
Software can get all the benefits of copyright, without having to provide a copy for the public benefit. (In this case, when I say "copy" I mean copy of the source code). A closed box program doesn't do any good, the public can't benefit from that in 95 or 120 years (or the author's death+ periods).
I should have been off to sleep about 2 hours ago, so at this point I think I'm just rambling and mopy...