It is ironic that you mention reverse engineering, because all of my arguments here are based in details of the most famous copyright infraction cases. The pre

It is ironic that you mention reverse engineering, because all of my arguments here are based in details of the most famous copyright infraction cases. The prevailing logic in this thread, whether correct or not, if that is even a quantifiable measure, is that copyright is exactly, precisely, without exception, "a specific expression of an idea", and by defining copyright so cleanly, they can similarly define what qualifies as infringement of copyright. Where this idea meets stiff resistance is when it is contrasted with all of the precedent set by high profile infraction cases, such as George Harrison/The Chiffons, The Verve/The Rolling Stones, Ray Parker Jr./Huey Lewis. Each of these, in its own way, demonstrates that there is always more context involved than people making simple absolutist statements would have you believe.