Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
It wasn't novel, computer code is just words and number written down. The law didn't need to treat it any differently to any other collection of words and numbers to decide whether it should be copyrightable or not. Is it original? Is it creative? Is it more than minimal?
But that only protects the exact form that was written down, as with any 'normal' copyright. An independently developed second program that performed the same function would not be covered by the first program's copyright.
Regardless of the complexity of the code, or the innovation it might embody?
A million LOC project is the same as print("Hello world")?
That is saying that War and Peace is the same as "The sun rose in the east".
|
Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Claiming that programmers are authors and that programs are writings is very much a novel approach that distorts the purpose of copyright. Programming is a lot closer to inventing, but it's not inventing either. Copyright, the right to copy, started off as a monopoly to publish, i.e. make copies, of specific works such as the Bible. Until 1976, to get a copyright, you were required to register the work when it was first published. Of course, software was not published. That's why in 1908 the Supreme court found that piano rolls, something very similar to software, were not copyrightable. Interestingly, the first software copyrights were given to the printout of the code, not the code itself.