[Discuss] Request for Comments: Digital DIY: Legal Challenges & Solutions Practised Report
patola at gmail.com
Sun Sep 25 14:25:35 UTC 2016
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:30 AM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Someone please explain to me:
>> With all these restrictions about copyright being applied to artistic but
>> not utilitarian aspects of the creation, how is it that it fully applies to
>> computer software, which is often a fully functional creation?
>> I have read the article on wikipedia but could not really understand it:
> Copyright isn't just based an artistic works, but on the more general idea
> that a pattern required creativity. So a pile of rocks you found on the
> ground is the wrong idea, but a rock garden you carefully arranged is the
> right idea. It's the arrangement, fixed in a medium, that gets protection.
> Software is a file made out of utilitarian parts, but arranged in a
> creative way. All of the value is in the creative pattern of common
> elements. If the pattern is wrong, the computer doesn't function. If the
> pattern is right, the computer can function beautifully. Most people can't
> arrange the symbols correctly; doing so requires an injection of
> creativity, which is what copyright protects.
> So, you are confirming that copyright on software is based on a very far
stretch of the concept of creativity. That is my interpretation too, which
shifts it from being a rational thought to a rationalization, or as I like
to describe, a lame excuse for controlling content.
Cláudio "Patola" Sampaio
MakerLinux Labs - Campinas, SP
Gmail <patola at gmail.com> - Mail EAD <patola at techtraining.eng.br> -
MakerLinux <patola at makerlinux.com.br> - YOUTUBE
Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/patolinux> - Facebook da MakerLinux
<https://www.facebook.com/makerlinux> - Lattes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss