on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 05:29:20PM -0800, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Friday 17 November 2000 01:20 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The idea is that, if a program is a work, and if (as the courts have
> > held, in Mai v. Peak) a program in memory meets the fixed and
> > tangible requirements of copyright law, and is therefore a copy
> > under copyright law, then a program linked to a library at runtime
> > is a derivative work.
>
> I've heard this before, but I've always dismissed it as hearsay. I
> will have to look up Mai v Peak. The implications of this are
> mind-boggling! Does Stephen King have rights to my brain because I've
> read his books and they're now in my memory?
The legal test of copyrightability (what is copyrightable) is "original
works of authorship, fixed in a tangible medium" [1]. Or at least the
second part of that.
"Original" -- not a copy of another work.
"Authorship" -- some creative threshold (however low) must exist.
"Fixed" -- persisting over some period of time.
"Tangible" -- capable of being perceived by others.
Your own thoughts might meet the first three tests, but fail the fourth
-- there is not yet a mindreading machine. What the LoC and/or Congress
will decide when this time comes, I cannot say.
IA(S)NAL
(still)
[1] http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html#wwp
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc. http://www.zelerate.org
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
PGP signature