Re: Copyright of digital keys (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>]

----- Forwarded message from Petro -----

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 22:41:20 -0800
From: Petro <petro@suba.com>
Subject: CDR: Re: Copyright of digital keys

	First of all, I don't think you can *copyright* a physical 
device. I think copyright is reserved for things *like* writing, 
videotapes, etc. Programs come into this because they are seen as 
analogs to writing.

[ The design, not the device. Poor wording on my part, sorry. This is
  getting to a part of copyright law that makes my head hurt because
  it does nothing except complicate life near as I can tell.

  But to your point, what they are reseved for is not the writing or
  videotapes but rather their contents. The IP they carry if you will.
  They are protected because they are the carrier of the IP, if this
  weren't so there wouldn't be any way to define illegal copies. It's
  IP that the arrangement (the code if you will) of that phsyical
  instantiation represent that is protected. The fact that certain letters
  follow other letters. Now if copright will protect this arrangement of
  bits, instantiated as aluminum and plastic for example, then why
  won't this cover another arrangement of bits of this same aluminum and
  plastic that represent somebody elses IP? We all agree, I think, that it
  is the IP and not the aluminum and plastic we're protecting. Is there
  suddenly different classes of IP? Where is this in the copyright law?

  Question: How long does a song have to be to be copyrightable? ]

	Second point (and only semi-related to the first) There are 
certain IP like things that cannot be "copyrighted". Typefaces cannot 
be copyrighted. The *names* can be copyrighted (as a 
description/label of the typeface), but the actual *form* of the 
glyphs cannot. That would lead me to believe that the shape of the 
key cannot be copyrighted either.

[ Which raises an interesting point about copyright. And one of the
  reasons I don't like it.

  But the key isn't stand alone like a font, it is an integral part of a
  design. A key without a lock, or vice a versa is only funnily twisted
  bits of metal. There must be IP to drive them.

  And how long does a name have to be before it is copyrighted? Per
  somebodies allegation (that started this supposition) you can't
  copyright short strings of text and such. How does the distinction
  get blurred with fonts? Why is it I can't copright "Bill" but if
  I attach it to a font I all of a sudden can, thought as you point
  out the font that it points to is itself not protected? "Bill isn't
  copyrightable, the font isn't coprightable, put them together and
  suddenly the sting "Bill" is copyrightable. So this keeps somebody
  from making their own font and calling it "Bill" but doesnt' keep
  them from taking my font and calling it "Ted". And the artistic
  shape of the font is what gives it worth, is completely unprotected.
  It doesn't protect anything in this context, except the income of
  lawyers that is.

  Let's look at choreography, as the instantiation of a IP that is.
  If one develops a dance and doesn't annotate it then it isn't
  protected. But if you annotate it then performance of that dance
  is protected. The same for music, it isn't just the sheet music itself
  but the actual performance, the physical instantiation of the song
  is protected.

  Is it that people are involved in the instantiation? I certainly can't
  find any indication of this. Yet, unless a person is involved in the
  actual instantiation it looks like copyright law doesn't protect
  instantiation. Does this mean that if I take a normaly 
  non-copyrightable thing and involve a person in its operation I can
  all of a sudden copyright it? That certainly isn't any sort of IP
  that I recognize.

  So the situation is the design of my lock and key is protected by
  copyright while it is on paper (or equivalent medium). The actual safe 
  w/ the lock installed isn't protectd itself by copyright, as you point
  out it's a thing and not IP per se. You can't copy my designs without 
  my permission but you could buy a safe and take it apart to 
  reverse-engineer the design. You could then produce your exact copy and 
  its design, though not it's instantiation, would then be protected as 
  well.

  So how is it that I can draw a design of a lock and it's protected.
  But if somebody actualy performs that design it isn't? Unlike say
  music where both the design and performance are protected.

  If the performance/instantiation hangs around for a while then it isn't 
  protected, but if it's transient it is protected

  Is copyright actualy protecting the process of one person learning how
  to do something another person knows how to do already (e.g. play the
  song or build the safe) and the actual doing thereof?

  This question was the reason behind my request for pointers to any
  case law regarding reverse engineering of new engine designs or
  related issues. I was trying to find a case where this distinction
  was at issue. ]

[ text deleted ]

----- End of forwarded message from Petro -----

    ____________________________________________________________________

            The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?

                                        O[rphan] D[rift>]
                                        Cyber Positive

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------