3 ms·

> It's not that they're not APIs (you can call anything you want an API -- copyright law doesn't care what it's called), but because they don't have a fixed for

by Oletros 11y ago

> It's not that they're not APIs (you can call anything you want an API -- copyright law doesn't care what it's called), but because they don't have a fixed form. In order to copyright something you need it to be a particular fixed text (or image, or recording). There is no such text for web APIs. You can come up with multiple texts (or images) all describing the exact same API. That is not the case for "plain" APIs. Plain APIs -- like all code -- do have a fixed form. But no fixed form means no copyright. You're joking, isn't? > The bits of text comprising the names of JSON fields, while fixed, are too short (and lack the necessary structure) to be considered "a work" for copyright purposes. What are you talking about? Do you really know what an API is and how web services are defined? You're confusing argument names with the API definition.

telemark 11y ago
Yes, it's utterly laughable. The sad thing is this isn't just him. This is actually what Oracle is arguing and the hoops they are jumping through to try and copywrite APIs for what they want but try and get around the very obvious problems. You also can't label APIs as 'language level' either. It's ridiculous.
- pron 11y ago
  > This is actually what Oracle is arguing Not at all. Oracle is arguing nothing regarding web APIs, and I'm arguing nothing about library APIs. My argument's and Oracle's do not overlap. Oracle is saying that library APIs are copyrightable, and I am saying that even if they are, web APIs cannot be. > You also can't label APIs as 'language level' either. It's ridiculous. You don't need to label APIs in any way (and what you find ridiculous has little bearing on the law). The relevant question to this particular discussion is whether what you're trying to copyright is a piece of text or not. A library API -- like all code -- is text. A web API isn't. If there's no fixed text to copyright, all other discussions are moot. You could also claim that copyrighting code while not copyrighting algorithms is ridiculous because in your mind they are the same. However, as far as copyright is concerned, an algorithm can be described in many different words -- and therefore there is no fixed form to copyright -- while a piece of code is fixed, and therefore could potentially (and, in fact, is) be copyrighted.
pron 11y ago
What piece of (substantial) text is replicated when you implement someone else's web API? If there isn't one then there is nothing to copyright. The question of how web services are defined is not material. The question is whether a "API" = "fixed text" or not. For library APIs, the answer is yes, for web APIs the answer is no.
- Oletros 11y ago
  It is clear that you don't j=know what an API is if you say that a web API like Goole Maps or Beeminder is not a library API. Or perhaps you're just trolling
  - pron 11y ago
    For the purpose of this discussion there's no need to argue what an API is because it matters little. Like I said, it is like arguing whether a story is copyrightable or not. It turns out that whether something is a story is not the relevant question, but rather the (first) question is how is that thing (call it a story or foo) recorded in fixed form in tangible media. Java's APIs are recorded in fixed and tangible form; the Google Maps API isn't. Again, what it is may matter when you start asking further questions, but the very first thing in the US copyright code says that in order for something to be eligible for copyright it must be fixed in tangible media. Just to make clear: I am not arguing that Java's APIs is copyrighted, just that there is good reason to see why -- from the perspective of copyright law -- the Google Maps API isn't, regardless of the status of the Java API. They could be absolutely identical from your perspective, and yet different enough from the law's perspective due to some minor detail that you -- but not the law -- may consider inconsequential.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

by Oletros 11y ago

telemark 11y ago

Yes, it's utterly laughable. The sad thing is this isn't just him. This is actually what Oracle is arguing and the hoops they are jumping through to try and copywrite APIs for what they want but try and get around the very obvious problems. You also can't label APIs as 'language level' either. It's ridiculous.

pron 11y ago
> This is actually what Oracle is arguing Not at all. Oracle is arguing nothing regarding web APIs, and I'm arguing nothing about library APIs. My argument's and Oracle's do not overlap. Oracle is saying that library APIs are copyrightable, and I am saying that even if they are, web APIs cannot be. > You also can't label APIs as 'language level' either. It's ridiculous. You don't need to label APIs in any way (and what you find ridiculous has little bearing on the law). The relevant question to this particular discussion is whether what you're trying to copyright is a piece of text or not. A library API -- like all code -- is text. A web API isn't. If there's no fixed text to copyright, all other discussions are moot. You could also claim that copyrighting code while not copyrighting algorithms is ridiculous because in your mind they are the same. However, as far as copyright is concerned, an algorithm can be described in many different words -- and therefore there is no fixed form to copyright -- while a piece of code is fixed, and therefore could potentially (and, in fact, is) be copyrighted.

pron 11y ago

What piece of (substantial) text is replicated when you implement someone else's web API? If there isn't one then there is nothing to copyright. The question of how web services are defined is not material. The question is whether a "API" = "fixed text" or not. For library APIs, the answer is yes, for web APIs the answer is no.

Oletros 11y ago
It is clear that you don't j=know what an API is if you say that a web API like Goole Maps or Beeminder is not a library API. Or perhaps you're just trolling
- pron 11y ago
  For the purpose of this discussion there's no need to argue what an API is because it matters little. Like I said, it is like arguing whether a story is copyrightable or not. It turns out that whether something is a story is not the relevant question, but rather the (first) question is how is that thing (call it a story or foo) recorded in fixed form in tangible media. Java's APIs are recorded in fixed and tangible form; the Google Maps API isn't. Again, what it is may matter when you start asking further questions, but the very first thing in the US copyright code says that in order for something to be eligible for copyright it must be fixed in tangible media. Just to make clear: I am not arguing that Java's APIs is copyrighted, just that there is good reason to see why -- from the perspective of copyright law -- the Google Maps API isn't, regardless of the status of the Java API. They could be absolutely identical from your perspective, and yet different enough from the law's perspective due to some minor detail that you -- but not the law -- may consider inconsequential.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]