Re: copyright under stress

On 6/15/2000, Robert Cumbow <rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Rob Jones <rjones[_at_]robjob.com> wrote in part:
> >
> > what about the basic premise that many software companies have
> > with regards to their source code. Microsoft even made this
> > argument in their recent trial, basically stating that they had
> > done nothing wrong by not allowing access to their source code,
> > because that is a basic tenant of copyright ownership that they
> > do not have to provide the source code to anybody.
>
> That is a basic tenet of trade secret law, not copyright law. The
> opposite is a tenet of copyright law: when you register a copyright
> you are REQUIRED to make the work accessible by depositing a copy
> of the work in the Library of Congress which will be accessible as
> part of the public record. In respect of the tension between the
> need for trade secret protection and the public interest served by
> copyright law, the Library of Congress allows deposits of source
> code to be redacted by up to 49%, so they cannot be copied by
> competitors. But that does not make restriction of access a
> "tenet" of copyright.

Actually I disagree with you Robert. I understand the relationship with trade secrets and copyrights, but I think the restricting access is completely a "tenet" of copyright, regardless of trade secrets. If I am a software publisher (and in the interest of disclosure, I am in house counsel for a software company), I can show many many people my source code. That would destroy any "trade secrets" I have. But that doesn't mean I have to show it to everyone or even stop showing it, regardless of if its trade secret status. And it doesn't mean that, because people know how it works or that I have let people see it before (which would destroy the trade secret status) that I am obligated to produce my source code to someone who asks for it so that they can do something with it. As I own the copyright on the source code, part of what I can do it prevent anyone from having access to it altogether.

I guess I just have a hard time with the concept of "access" altogether. I see denying access as one of the bundle of sticks of a copyright.

Rob Jones
<rjones[_at_]robjob.com> Received on Fri Jun 16 2000 - 21:15:15 GMT