Re: lawsuit on copying ideas

On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Timothy Phillips <hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Steven D. Jamar <sjamar[_at_]law.howard.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I hope no one trusts Mr. Riolo's interpretation and characterization
> > of US copyright law. What he says is not correct. It is wrong. It
> > is wrong in ways that may not seem to matter to him, but do matter
> > to lawyers and the courts.
>
> Even Mr. Jamar recognizes that the line between ideas and expression
> is not always clear. In light of that, dogmatic absolute assertions
> that "ideas are not copyrightable" are inconsistent.

if the database protection act passes, then facts and lists and the like can be copyrighted. at this point, Mattel claims that the list of sites blocked by CyberPatrol is covered by copyright.

the statement "ideas are not copyrightable" might be translated (if one is a legal pragmatist) into the prediction that courts will rule that things we call "ideas" are not protected by copyright law. however, the prediction might be meaningless tautology if it predicts that if the courts rule that the expression is copyrightable, then it can't be a mere "idea".

a similar situation happens today with patents: the idea of what can be patented seems to have loosened and who knows how courts will catch up with it.

so at present (and i'm not a lawyer nor a professional philosopher) i'd have to suggest that "ideas are not copyrightable" is a good platform from which to pitch arguments to a judge, but it's open to interpretation, and can't be used to settle arguments in this forum.

since this is my idea, and not copyrightable, i guess it must belong to "the public domain," which might answer another question floating around here.

-- 
"Eric"  Eric Eldred  Eldritch Press
mailto:Eldred[_at_]EldritchPress.org
http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf