4 ms·
Good question. My guess is that the only thing needed to be copyrightable is the one thing which is not.
by neiman 8y ago
Good question. My guess is that the only thing needed to be copyrightable is the one thing which is not.
- sandworm101 8y agoThey are copyrightable as works, and even if they arent then they are as devices protecting works. The level of creativity needed for copyright is minimal. A key pair is generated by machine, but at the request of a human according to parameters selected by the human. That is likely enough.
- steve19 8y agoA key is just a long number. The AACS encryption key controversy was the subject of DCMA take downs because the key could be used to strip DRM, not because it was a number.
- saint_abroad 8y agoSince recipes are not protected under copyright law [1] it's unlikely mathematical parameter lists have sufficient "literary expression" for protection. OTOH, a passphrase of substantial creativity [2] may be protected by copyright. Crucially (for any takedown), this would cover transformations by key derivation functions. IANAL. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html [2] https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection_for_short/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection...
- sandworm101 8y agoA purely random number is almost certainly always beyond copyright, but as soon as someone puts limitations on that randomness a court may find that enough. And what matters for a takedown is not the number, but the actually document being published. Github is not hosting the random number. It is hosting that number in the context of a larger document and it is that document that is subject to the takedown request. Things might be different if github hosted only the number without the associated labels and code.