Eat this, you cheap pirates!

[LDiCesare]

I just can't see how software can be copyrighted, programs aren't artistic expressions.
(...)
Some books are stretching it, but still, everybody has a unique way of conveying thoughts and information, so they can be "artistic," I suppose.

If you could read bytecode, you would be able to look at code (programs) as a form of art. There are hundred of ways to code the same algorithm, and some are beautiful, others are ugly. Many coders tell of a code as being beautiful, ugly, or stinking.

[Switch]

First, I posted this because people actually WERE stating that in their country pirating is legal.

That article 4 was from the WIPO thing, which is BASED off of Berne.

Software can be copyrighted as the code can be printed, and the program can be placed onto CD or other tangible mediums. It is only the intangible that cannot be copyrighted. For example, I write a program. You like it, so you write your own with your own code (ie, not copying any of mine) and create a similar program. That is not infingement, as all your work was original (depite the idea not being).

In order to copyright, all you need is written (Copyright (C) 2003 John Doe), proof (mail to yourself, don't open letter. Prooves date of copyright).
In order to sure monetarily for infringement, then you have to put into the copyright office.
Hope that clears everything.

[Switch]

And I guess this convention also means that until the author of software has been dead for 50 years, abandonware is illegal. And no software authors have been dead that long, so all abandonware is technically illegal.

[Switch]

Originally posted by UberKruX
j00 cannot stop teh warez. keep trying.

everything done so far to stop piracy has been overcome.

the only effective way to effectively monitor piracy is to install some internet-based security system whenever an app is activated, logging IP / serial # / etc, and i cant wait for someone to try that, watch the privacy lawsuits fly up.

I'm sure if Microsoft made the software, packaged it in windows, and hid it in the EULA somewhere, most people wouldn't know. And those who would either would switch to linux, or already have .

[Asher]

And I guess this convention also means that until the author of software has been dead for 50 years, abandonware is illegal. And no software authors have been dead that long, so all abandonware is technically illegal.

Ada/Lady Lovelace has been dead since 1852, though.

[Switch]

sorry, you lost me at 'quote:'

[Asher]

She's generally accepted to be the first "computer programmer".

She was friends with Charles Babbage, De Morgan, and a bunch of other important computer people.

[Switch]

Oh, ok. I guess this is a story I haven't heard of before, and may look into if I'm bored . I'm sure it has some interest value in it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Software programs can be copyrighted in the same way that music, books, and art can. It's the act of creation, and it's simply not fair for you to spend all of your time working on software trying to sell it as some kind of non-tangible product (like music, etc) only to have everyone legally freeload off of it for free because they've got comfy jobs making $10K a year as lackey sysadmins and don't need a job as a software engineer.

Copyrights exist for computer software, as they should. If you don't like it, don't use programs that use it. Nobody is forcing you to copyright your programs or use copyrighted programs.

Your argument is absurd...

Yet another non-argument from Glonkie. You have not put forth anything to back up your argument at all, you have merely reinterated the same bald assertion, tossed out a strawman, whine about how freeloaders are thieves, then got a thick enough face to call my argument absurd.

Typical.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
If you could read bytecode, you would be able to look at code (programs) as a form of art. There are hundred of ways to code the same algorithm, and some are beautiful, others are ugly. Many coders tell of a code as being beautiful, ugly, or stinking.

Bytecode? As in object code? No, that's definitely not art. It is like running a piece of text through an automatic translator and call the result art.

[Wittlich]

Of course, the term "art" can mean different things to different people...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yet another non-argument from Glonkie. You have not put forth anything to back up your argument at all, you have merely reinterated the same bald assertion, tossed out a strawman, whine about how freeloaders are thieves, then got a thick enough face to call my argument absurd.

Typical.

It's not my fault you don't understand the basics.

There are millions of ways to implement any given program. Software is non-tangible and a way millions of people make their living developing.

Copyright protects their intellectual property in the same way that there are laws against theft of physical objects.

If this is a non-argument I suggest you get your head examined...

[General Ludd]

Anything that is created out of someone's imagination, expression, or creativety can be art. But it is subjective anyways.

I don't see how anyone could not see how a computer game can be art, even if they are losing their artistic qualities in favour of commercialism (in much the same as hollywood movies) they will always have artistic potential - just as movies, paintings, and other media forms will.

[LDiCesare]

I'd like to point out that art and technique are very difficult to distinguish. I chose the second word because its root (ancient greek techne) means both art and craft.
In French, craft is artisanat. Those just show that both art and craft have become differentiated only very recently, and any piece of craft can be viewed as art.
As for the point about bytecode, in fact, that would be more of assembly I was thinking about, which is a language. And if passing data through an automatic translator removres the art from the data, then what about art seen in tv or lisened in radio? Those are automatic translators.

[chequita guevara]

The problem isn't with the concept of intellectual property per se, but rather how that is implimented. When the US first established copyrights, the purpose was to foster new creations by protecting the work of authors long enough that they could make a living being creative, but you'd have to continue creating new works if you wanted to live off your work.

The first copyrights were for seven years with a seven year extension being possible. Now days we have copyrights which extend 95 years past the life of the creator (it's a different length for corporate copyright holders). . . and yet patents only last 10 years.