Re: copyright under stress

On Fri, Jun 16, 2000, Eric Eldred <eldred[_at_]eldritchpress.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000, Robert Cumbow <rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > 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.
>
> Again, that's probably the way the law SHOULD be. But Microsoft
> is clearly claiming that the law is NOT that way, and they are
> clearly using copyright in an attempt to restrict access. If
> you read their statement, you will see that Microsoft is stating
> straight out that ANY revelation of code, whether it be partial,
> full, or just APIs, is NOT ONLY a violation of their trade secrets,
> but a violation of their COPYRIGHT.
>
> The fact that they go so far as to swear it in a court case
> indicates that THEY believe that copyright covers trade secrets and
> that is FOR THEM a "TENET" of copyright. As I pointed out on this
> list some months ago, there should be nothing surprising about this
> belief of Microsoft -- Bill Gates enunciated it fully in 1980 in a
> magazine interview, with an obvious confusion of trade secrets and
> copyright -- even before object code could be copyrighted. (The
> odd remainder of the issues is that, previously, Microsoft stated
> over and over that APIs were made public, yet they were covered by
> copyright. Here they claim they are protected by copyright from
> even revealing APIs -- to competitors without a license.)
>
> Well, if you need another example, let's refer to Jack Valenti's
> tortuous interview by Garbus in the DeCSS case. Mr Valenti can
> be said, I believe, to state the following: copyright allows fair
> use and teachers and librarians have fair use -- copyright law
> doesn't take that away from them. On the other hand, since the
> DMCA has been passed, it is illegal to decrypt a DVD for any reason
> whatsoever. When the questioner repeats the question, the answer
> is repeated: there is no conflict -- there is no reason to make any
> special provision for fair use of videos in distance education, for
> example. Teachers can just buy complete new copies instead (as a
> recent response on this list agreed -- without considering that
> with the DMCA, there may be no negotiation permitted -- it may be
> take it or leave it -- or if you buy a DVD and it doesn't run on
> Linux, you are not authorized by fair use to figure out a way to
> play it on your own machine).
>
> Others do believe there is a conflict between the DMCA on the one
> hand and fair use on the other -- and that no amount of hand-waving
> as Bill Gates and Jack Valenti do can resolve anything. The courts,
> naturally, can resolve things, and it may be that the courts will
> agree with Cumbow, Gates, and Valenti, instead of the rest of us.
> Let's leave it for them, since the matters ought to become clearer
> in the courts soon.

Those are not examples of copyright law being used to deny public access to created works. Those are examples of stupid public statements by non-lawyers who don't know what copyright law does and does not protect. My position as to whether copyright law can be used to deny access was already clearly stated in my previous posting, and it's pretty close to the exact opposite of what Mr. Eldred quotes Gates and Valenti as saying. So I'll thank him not to tar me with the same brush (or any brush, for that matter).

Robert C. Cumbow
 Graham & Dunn PC
 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
 Seattle, WA 98101-2390
 206.340.9619
 206.340.9599 fax
 rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
 http://www.grahamdunn.com/  

        Big law firm experience
without the big law firm experience SM

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email message may be protected by the attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine or other confidentiality protection. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you. Received on Mon Jun 19 2000 - 18:03:26 GMT