Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!kpno!ut-sally!crandell
From: crandell@ut-sally.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Copyright law
Message-ID: <169@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Aug-83 21:21:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.169
Posted: Wed Aug 24 21:21:50 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Aug-83 21:11:17 EDT
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 37


     LMMOTPC (Let me make one thing perfectly clear) -- I'm not a lawyer.
However, I have been reading about copyright law of late, since it has
relevance for me, as it does for many of you.
     First a general point: it's quite true that the whole purpose of
copyright law is to permit enforcement of an author's absolute right to
control the reproduction and distribution of his original creation.
HOWEVER, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding, the legal system
generally attempts to be reasonable in application of law.  Everything
I've read on the subject makes a considerable fuss about the issue of
"fair use".  For example, we have all written papers in which we quoted
theorems, formulae, conclusions, etc. from some or another book, right?
Books are, of course, generally copyrighted, and yet how many of us have
actually been sued over a discreetly borrowed theorem?  Of course, we
should always clearly acknowledge the source when we quote (plagiarism
is a separate issue), but it's copying -- generally without permission --
all the same.  This is an example of copying that is generally considered
"fair use".  Now, any moderately comprehensive list of cases that can or
can't be considered fair use would be rather lengthy, and I have neither
the qualifications nor the inclination to present such, but it's important
to be aware of this aspect of the law if you're involved with copyright.
Protracted court battles are often fought over the question of whether
a specific application of copyright-protected material constituted fair
use, and in my untutored opinion, the cited case of the choir director
represented a significant miscarriage of justice; I guess it just shows
to go you that copyright law can be tricky.
     Now: programs.  ONLY the text (not just source text; you can copy-
right object text, too) of a program is subject to copyright.  By law,
algorithms cannot be protected either by copyright or by patent, so you
can't be sued for filching an algorithm, so long as your code is your
own.  Now, the legal question is, "What is meant by 'your own'?".  Please
don't misunderstand; I'm NOT saying that you can pick up a listing of a
program you like (not your work), Caesar all the identifiers and then
put it on the market.  If you try it and don't get away with it, don't
blame me.
     Hope this helps.

			     Jim (ihnp4!ut-sally!crandell)