Re: Shrinkwrap Licenses - Reply re UCC2b

Patrice Lyons <plyons/0003432266[_at_]mcimail.com> writes:
>
> There appears to be a basic conflict between the concept of "computer
> program" as it has developed under the U.S. copyright law over the last
> twenty years or so, and the definitional notes on this matter in the
> July 1998 draft of UCC2b. Note 6 to the definitional section appears
> to suggest that a computer program for copyright purposes is limited to
> what it terms "functional operations (program)," while the rather vague
> notion of "communicated content (informational content)" would not be
> covered. This distinction is unusual from a copyright perspective, and,
> indeed, may serve to inhibit the development of dynamic new programming
> services over the coming years as distributed integration software
> continues to emerge in the Internet environment. The distinction drawn
> in the draft UCC2b between "programs as operating instructions," and
> "'informational content' communicated to people," does not reflect the
> scope of copyright protection for computer programs under the current
> law. While it may be argued that this definitional confusion may
> eventually be settled by federal copyright preemption of disputes,
> there may be much confusion in the interim.
>

Two thoughts on this.

First, it seems clear that despite this difference in definition, UCC 2B itself extends to cover both computer programs and digital content. While some of the rules may differ between these two subjects, most would not.

Second, David Nimmer has an excellent paper exploring the ways in which UCC2B changes traditional copyright terms forthcoming in the California Law Review's UCC 2B symposium.

Mark

Mark Lemley
Visiting Professor, Boalt Hall School of Law University of California at Berkeley (fall 1998) mlemley[_at_]mail.law.berkeley.edu
Professor of Law
University of Texas School of Law
Of counsel, Fish & Richardson P.C.
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu Received on Thu Aug 27 1998 - 20:35:53 GMT