Re: lawsuit on copying ideas

On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Steven D. Jamar <sjamar[_at_]law.howard.edu> wrote:
>
> Ideas are not protectible in copyright no matter how much we wish
> to twist and bend the law to our personal desires. But the line
> between what is an expression and what is an idea is of course
> fuzzy -- but it is wrong to say that ideas are protected by copyright.

When Mr. Jamar states "ideas are not protectable in copyright", his meaning may be:

1. that whatever the courts protect, when applying the copyright statute is, by definition, not "idea"; or
2. that the courts are incapable of erroneously applying the statute to protect what they should not; or
3. that the copyright statute, _when rightly interpreted by the courts_, does not protect ideas.

If his meaning is (1), then his argument is circular.

If his meaning is (2), then I consider him to be mistaken.

If his meaning is (3), then I agree.

But I equally agree with Mr. Riolo's implicit statement that "copyright is being used to protect ideas", since I interpret it with the meaning "the copyright statute can be erroneously applied by the courts to protect what should not be protectable", with the added warning that the courts are becoming increasingly prone to such mistakes. The statement "copyright protects ideas", with this meaning, is equally within the range of meanings, appropriate to a copyright law context, of "copyright", "protect" and "idea", as is the statement that "copyright does not protect ideas" when it is stated with meaning (3) above.

Tim Phillips
<hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> Received on Tue Mar 28 2000 - 00:59:07 GMT