[OT] Where ill conceived copyright laws can lead
bobs at twft.com
Fri Oct 12 12:09:31 EDT 2012
It's my understanding that the foundation of copyright is that the moment you author or create something, assuming you are the first one, your rights are in effect. Everything else is to quantify and execute that protection. It has been said that there are only 15 or so unique story lines. Apparently it's not the story lines that are protected, but rather the way in which the story is told. I suppose you could say the same thing about software. Word Processing is not copyrighted, but the method of delivering it is.
Simply changing the names of everything in a story is not sufficient to distinguish it from the original. The new story must be uniquely different. So also with software. Changing all the variables and references to them is not enough to establish a new work. What they look for is methodology in coding. That this is somewhat of a grey area is not due to flaws in the principle of Copyrights, but rather the seemingly inexhaustible means by which men are capable of covering their tracks.
Also, a copyright does not last in perpetuity. There is a time limit beyond which if it is not renewed, it will become nullified. So although the thread has been entertaining, it's rather baseless.
On Oct 11, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Peter Haworth wrote:
> That's not copyright, that's patent, different thing although just as weird!
> One problem with copyright laws is that, as with a lot of laws, they are
> different in every country.
> lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Richmond <richmondmathewson at gmail.com>wrote:
>> The recent spat over whether one of the major mobile devices has nicked
>> parts of their GUI from
>> another is an example of how copyright is not used to protect but to bully.
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode