scholarly journals Copyright law as impacted by changes in computer software technologies

1992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard O Ward
Keyword(s):  
Computer Software ◽  
Copyright Law

Making a Living, Making a Life

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Klemperer
Keyword(s):  
Computer Software ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
First Century ◽  
Artistic Development ◽  
Technological Changes ◽  
Musical Style ◽  
Career Trajectory ◽  
Professional Musicians ◽  
Professional Musician ◽  
Musical Traditions

To be a professional musician in today’s marketplace, regardless of musical style or tradition, is largely a balancing act. Time allocated to artistic development or career development all too often involves sacrificing one for the other. Faced with major economic, demographic, and technological changes in the twenty-first century, it falls to the musician to develop a multifaceted career trajectory. This includes a diverse skill set including not only fluency in various musical traditions but expertise in business, computer software, sound engineering, and copyright law as well. The musician’s balancing act thus involves choosing which educational programs will be of most help within realistic time constraints. Professional musicians who return to academia often bring a creative and practical approach to curriculum change based on their real world experiences.

scholarly journals So Dark the Con(tu) of Man: The Quest for a Software Derivative Work Right in Section 117

2008 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lateef Mtima
Keyword(s):  
Computer Software ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
User Adaptation ◽  
New Public ◽  
Derivative Work ◽  
Software Programs ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Judicial Recognition

Computer software programs have various unique characteristics as copyrightable works. Among other things, unlike traditional copyrightable works, it is necessary to copy and often to modify software programs in order to use them. In addition, as functional works, the development of additional programs, an overarching goal of copyright protection, often requires the “efficient reuse” of protected elements of preexisting programs. The copyright law currently provides an ambiguous and contradictory response to these issues. While section 117 of the Copyright Act provides program users with the privilege to prepare “adaptations” of copyrighted programs, section 106 reserves to copyright holders the exclusive right to prepare derivative versions of their programs. This article proposes that user adaptation privileges can be distinguished from, and reconciled with, copyright holder derivative work exclusive rights by virtue of the impact that a user-prepared adaptation will have upon the market for the original copyrighted program: “market benign” adaptations should be treated as privileged adaptations, while “market pernicious” adaptations should be treated as derivative works and therefore, subject to the rights of the copyright holder in the original program. In addition, the “practical-use versus market-impact” balancing rationale used to draw the foregoing distinction can also be used to reconstruct the traditional derivative work right into a narrower “software derivative work right.” This software derivative work right would limit the copyright holder’s exclusive right to that of creating derivative programs that are likely to compete with, or otherwise have an undue impact on the market for, the original copyrighted software program. This would enable judicial recognition of a new “public derivative work privilege” to create non-competitive derivative software programs from preexisting works.

Panel Discussion (Excerpts)

1986 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-39
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Panel Discussion ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Vivid Memories

Let me first say a few words on a personal theme. I had the privilege of being a student at our Faculty of Law of Mr. Shimron, to whose memory this conference is dedicated. I have very vivid memories of him. He taught us the course on Criminal Law, and he was a most impressive teacher. I should like to congratulate Mr. Shimron's family and Prof. Goldstein who co-operated in organizing this occasion.When I heard the opening remarks by Judge Shalgi I made a note that I should tell the audience that the Committee for the Revision of the Copyright Law in Israel has up till now done very little with regard to computer software. However, on hearing Dr. Shalgi's following remarks I began to realise that actually our Committee had already done a lot in the context of computer software. The Committee reached a decision that it was suitable and proper for the new Copyright Law to address itself and apply its rules to computer programmes, and to list computer software among the works that are protected by copyright.

scholarly journals Copyrightability of Recombinant DNA Sequences

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dna Sequences ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Recombinant Dna ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Dominant Form ◽  
Recent Emergence

The recent emergence and rapid growth of biotechnology as a commercial industry has raised serious questions concerning the role of patent law as the industry's dominant form of intellectual property protection. Several commentators, drawing on an analogy to computer software protection, have suggested copyright law as an alternative method of protecting recombinant DNA innovation. This article reviews these arguments in light of recent court decisions and scholarly commentary concerning copyright of computer software. The article argues that copyright law is not sacrosanct, but rather represents a particular scope of proprietary interests that may be used to accommodate the needs of new technologies such as biotechnology. The article asserts, however, that the decision to apply copyright protection to such a technology should be based on policy rather than on analogy. The article reviews the basic characteristics of both the science of molecular biology and of the biotechnology industry, and, by contrasting these characteristics to those of the software industry, concludes that, as a matter of policy, copyright is not the most appropriate form of intellectual property protection for biotechnology.

scholarly journals So Dark the Con(tu) of Man: The Quest for a Software Derivative Work Right in Section 117

2007 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lateef Mtima
Keyword(s):  
Computer Software ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
User Adaptation ◽  
New Public ◽  
Derivative Work ◽  
Software Programs ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Judicial Recognition

Computer software programs have various unique characteristics as copyrightable works. Among other things, unlike traditional copyrightable works, it is necessary to copy and often to modify software programs in order to use them. In addition, as functional works, the development of additional programs, an overarching goal of copyright protection, often requires the “efficient reuse” of protected elements of preexisting programs. The copyright law currently provides an ambiguous and contradictory response to these issues. While section 117 of the Copyright Act provides program users with the privilege to prepare “adaptations” of copyrighted programs, section 106 reserves to copyright holders the exclusive right to prepare derivative versions of their programs. This article proposes that user adaptation privileges can be distinguished from, and reconciled with, copyright holder derivative work exclusive rights by virtue of the impact that a user-prepared adaptation will have upon the market for the original copyrighted program: “market benign” adaptations should be treated as privileged adaptations, while “market pernicious” adaptations should be treated as derivative works and therefore, subject to the rights of the copyright holder in the original program.In addition, the “practical-use versus market-impact” balancing rationale used to draw the foregoing distinction can also be used to reconstruct the traditional derivative work right into a narrower “software derivative work right.” This software derivative work right would limit the copyright holder’s exclusive right to that of creating derivative programs that are likely to compete with, or otherwise have an undue impact on the market for, the original copyrighted software program. This would enable judicial recognition of a new “public derivative work privilege” to create non-competitive derivative software programs from preexisting works.

Copyright and the modern car: Colliding visions of the public good in DMCA section 1201 anti-circumvention proceedings

2021 ◽  
pp. 146144482110152
Author(s):  
MC Forelle
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Personal Computers ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
The Public ◽  
Conflicting Goals

In 2015, a debate unfolded over who should be allowed to access vehicular software for the purposes of repair, maintenance, and modification. Conducted as part of the triennial anticircumvention exemptions proceedings of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, this debate surfaced tensions that had long been brewing about copyright’s applicability to computer software, with the added complication that rather than personal computers, the devices being discussed were cars, trucks, and tractors. At stake was whether copyright was the appropriate tool for striking the balance between economic incentivization and individual autonomy—and whether that was really the balance in question. I argue, rather, that while copyright law has been written and interpreted with these two conflicting goals in mind, a third goal is possible: the public good served through communal and sustainable commitments. By re-prioritizing this goal, we could rewrite copyright to could lead us to a more equitable future.

scholarly journals Convergence in the Law of Software Copyright?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Software Copyright ◽  
The Law

Virtually all the courts to consider non-literal infringement of softwarecopyrights have lined up with the “narrow constructionists,” engaging in“analytic dissection” of computer programs in order to determine whetherany copyrightable expression has actually been copied. Most commonly, thisanalytic dissection has taken the form of the“abstraction-filtration-comparison” test set forth in Computer Associatesv. Altai. While there are still a few courts in which the “total conceptand feel” approach remains the law, the approach is moribund: since Altaiwas decided, no court has endorsed the broader “total concept and feel”approach.Rather than ending, the debate over software copyright law appears to beshifting its focus. Having finally resolved the debate that has beenplaguing software copyright law since its inception, courts are discoveringto their chagrin, that deciding what test to apply actually tells you verylittle about how to apply that test. Despite the convergence of courts onAltai's filtration approach, courts remain fundamentally conflicted indeciding how broadly to protect software copyright. Further, there remainsa good deal of misunderstanding about what exactly it means to “abstract”and “filter” a computer program.I suggest a unified approach to evaluating non-literal infringement insoftware copyright cases. This approach focuses on exactly what is allegedto have been copied. It also acknowledges the increasing role of patent lawin protecting computer software, and the role of other copyright concernssuch as compatibility and fair use. The result of this unified approach isto provide relatively narrow copyright protection for computer programs inmost cases of non-literal infringement.

Copyright Law as It Applies to Computer Software

1989 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Gemignani
Keyword(s):  
Computer Software ◽  
Copyright Law
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document