Re: Vicam driver appears to contain misappropriated code
Michael Poole wrote: Nathanael Nerode writes: Do you have any evidence to indicate that these byte streams contain any copyrightable or otherwise protected content? They look creative to me. I certainly couldn't write them independently, on my own. Under modern copyright law, everything is copyrighted by default, unless it falls in one of the standard uncopyrightable categories. It's not a fact and it's not an idea. If you show me evidence that it's a multiplication table, I'll retract that statement. It appears to be executable code based on the way it's loaded into the camera. Given the date of the camera's creation, it's not pre-1988, so it's not public domain by lack of notice. setup4[] and setup5[] could conceivably be firmware; the others are pretty clearly some other kind of device command, or alternatively are not copyrightable if they embody executable code. Where on Earth do you get this idea? This is completely contrary to everything I have ever heard about copyright law, so I'd really like to see some legal references. To my knowledge, executable code is copyrightable in general provided it is not the only possible (or only reasonable) way to express the needed execution steps. If it is the only reasonable way, then idea/expression merger makes it non-copyrightable. If it is not, then that is not the case -- it contains creative elements, and it is copyrighted material. In the absence of an indication from the manufacturer or vendor (or from inspection of the device), I tend to assume sequences of that size are configuration writes rather than small firmware. Given a particular mode of operation, configuration writes are non-creative fact. (It might be what the U.S. Copyright Act calls a useful article.) That category doesn't provide any relevant exceptions to the exclusive distribution right. (It does restrict action to 1977 law. Perhaps you know something about 1977 law.) In any case, the same exceptions do not apply worldwide. The US Copyright Office disagrees[1] about the impact of useful article status. Insofar as the device is pretty nearly useless without these programs, Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. It may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object Ah. You're suggesting that the programs are *purely* utilitarian and have *no* non-utilitarian elements. I don't know about this. From what I've seen, the vast majority of programs have non-utilitarian elements even in object code form. I'm inclined to assume they have them unless there's some evidence that they don't. That's interesting. It seems like an arguable case. I am not aware of any courts which have used the useful article distinction in a software case, but you probably know something I don't. and even European governments are realizing that similar kinds of fair use are necessary for interoperability, Would be nice. Interoperability exceptions are where we should be looking here. The scope of interoperability exceptions is something about which I do not know very much. I *do* know that the reverse engineering lawsuits which were successfully defended involved Chinese wall methodology, which attempts to guarantee (and if done correctly, does guarantee) that the only replicated material is the *essential* material. This was not done by this method. I do not see a problem with treating these bits as copyright-free until someone demonstrates (or asserts under oath, such as in a legal complaint) that they are copyrightable. [1]- http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.html#useful Why do you say it is non-distributable in the first place? Copyrighted material without license from the copyright holder is non-distributable unless it is fair use/fair dealing. You have made a rather large assumption to reach this conclusion, but you did not identify it earlier. Oh, the this is copyrighted material and this is not fair use assumption? Yes. Also, if you are going to exclude useful article status from consideration, why include fair use or fair dealing, which are similarly neither uniform nor universal? The parts of that status to which you are referring appear to be part of the question of what is eligible for copyright, actually. I'm happy to consider them, but it seems unlikely to cover anything not covered by the idea/expression merger doctrine. Michael Poole -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vicam driver appears to contain misappropriated code
Nathanael Nerode writes: In the Linux kernel, drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c contains *long* sequences which appear to have been lifted from some other driver without permission or attribution, probably by wire-sniffing. Not short sequences, really long ones. This is not just nondistributable, it's actually likely to be sued over: the company clearly didn't authorize this use. Do you have any evidence to indicate that these byte streams contain any copyrightable or otherwise protected content? (It might be what the U.S. Copyright Act calls a useful article.) Why do you say it is non-distributable in the first place? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vicam driver appears to contain misappropriated code
posted mailed Michael Poole wrote: Nathanael Nerode writes: In the Linux kernel, drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c contains *long* sequences which appear to have been lifted from some other driver without permission or attribution, probably by wire-sniffing. Not short sequences, really long ones. This is not just nondistributable, it's actually likely to be sued over: the company clearly didn't authorize this use. Do you have any evidence to indicate that these byte streams contain any copyrightable or otherwise protected content? They look creative to me. I certainly couldn't write them independently, on my own. Under modern copyright law, everything is copyrighted by default, unless it falls in one of the standard uncopyrightable categories. It's not a fact and it's not an idea. If you show me evidence that it's a multiplication table, I'll retract that statement. It appears to be executable code based on the way it's loaded into the camera. Given the date of the camera's creation, it's not pre-1988, so it's not public domain by lack of notice. (It might be what the U.S. Copyright Act calls a useful article.) That category doesn't provide any relevant exceptions to the exclusive distribution right. (It does restrict action to 1977 law. Perhaps you know something about 1977 law.) In any case, the same exceptions do not apply worldwide. Why do you say it is non-distributable in the first place? Copyrighted material without license from the copyright holder is non-distributable unless it is fair use/fair dealing. Michael Poole -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vicam driver appears to contain misappropriated code
Nathanael Nerode writes: Do you have any evidence to indicate that these byte streams contain any copyrightable or otherwise protected content? They look creative to me. I certainly couldn't write them independently, on my own. Under modern copyright law, everything is copyrighted by default, unless it falls in one of the standard uncopyrightable categories. It's not a fact and it's not an idea. If you show me evidence that it's a multiplication table, I'll retract that statement. It appears to be executable code based on the way it's loaded into the camera. Given the date of the camera's creation, it's not pre-1988, so it's not public domain by lack of notice. setup4[] and setup5[] could conceivably be firmware; the others are pretty clearly some other kind of device command, or alternatively are not copyrightable if they embody executable code. In the absence of an indication from the manufacturer or vendor (or from inspection of the device), I tend to assume sequences of that size are configuration writes rather than small firmware. Given a particular mode of operation, configuration writes are non-creative fact. (It might be what the U.S. Copyright Act calls a useful article.) That category doesn't provide any relevant exceptions to the exclusive distribution right. (It does restrict action to 1977 law. Perhaps you know something about 1977 law.) In any case, the same exceptions do not apply worldwide. The US Copyright Office disagrees[1] about the impact of useful article status. Insofar as the device is pretty nearly useless without these programs, and even European governments are realizing that similar kinds of fair use are necessary for interoperability, I do not see a problem with treating these bits as copyright-free until someone demonstrates (or asserts under oath, such as in a legal complaint) that they are copyrightable. [1]- http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.html#useful Why do you say it is non-distributable in the first place? Copyrighted material without license from the copyright holder is non-distributable unless it is fair use/fair dealing. You have made a rather large assumption to reach this conclusion, but you did not identify it earlier. Also, if you are going to exclude useful article status from consideration, why include fair use or fair dealing, which are similarly neither uniform nor universal? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
