[CLUE-Talk] Copyright of SCO source code

Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Wed Jul 23 08:08:36 MDT 2003


On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 12:59, Dennis J Perkins wrote:

> Interesting argument.  But if you do not publish, what proof do you have for 
> copyright?  It seems to me that most companies' use of source code fits the 
> definition of trade secret.  The consumer sees the binary program not the 
> source.  Compare this to Coke.  The consumer sees the beverage, not the 
> formula.  

There are methods of copyrighting something that isn't/hasn't been
published. 

At first, I was of the opinion that code should be published to receive
copyright... but that's not really the way the system works. It does
open the door to abuse, but we don't require other creators to publish
all their work to receive copyright, either. 

Tons of examples:

1. An author writes a work, then shoves in their dresser because they're
not happy with it. They still own the copyright to the work, so if
someone comes along later and discovers it and publishes it under their
own name, they can still sue for copyright infringement. 

2. A studio films a movie. It shoots a bunch of film, and then edits
bits of it into a movie. The raw footage copyright belongs to the studio
or whomever, but they don't have to publish all the footage to own
copyright over it. 

3. A musician writes several songs, but shelves them. Again, they still
own the copyright, so if someone comes along later and decides to try to
claim those songs as their own, they can be sued for infringement. The
score or 

In any of these cases, the burden would be on the original creator to
prove that it was their work -- but they would own copyright.
Publication and registration would strengthen their case somewhat, since
it's public and would give a more reliable verification as to the date
of creation... 

> I don't know how the courts view this, but it looks like a headache.

Absolutely a headache. 

> I could say IANAL, but the opinions of lawyers don't seem very conclusive to me 
> either.

Perhaps it should be IANAJ (I Am Not A Judge/Jury). 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net




More information about the clue-talk mailing list