4 ms·

That schema could be copyrighted, but not equivalent ones, because the protocol isn't its schema. That's like saying that an algorithm can be "fixed" by writing

by pron 7y ago

That schema could be copyrighted, but not equivalent ones, because the protocol isn't its schema. That's like saying that an algorithm can be "fixed" by writing a program that performs it, but if you do that, only the program (and its derivations) are protected, not the algorithm (the algorithms can be patented but not copyrighted). A program (including its code API) is a piece of text, and then its derivations are covered. A protocol, like an algorithm, is an idea that could be made into a piece of text, but the US copyright code explicitly states that that idea itself is not copyrighted. For example, you and I could go to a sporting event and write down a description of it. Both of our descriptions are copyrighted, and any derivation of mine or yours are protected, but your description is not a violation of mine and vice versa, and neither is any other description by someone who saw the event but didn't derive her description from mine or yours. Similarly for software, BTW. If you look at what a program does and then write a new program that does the same thing -- that's not copyright infringement, as you didn't derive your program from the fixed work of the original.

monocasa 7y ago
This whole case is about the "Structure, Sequence, and Organization" of the API. It's the abstract collection of API entry points, not any specific implementations. Yes, it's openly in conflict of previous definitions of copyright.
- pron 7y ago
  Yet again, I am not talking about whether code API is copyrighted or not; I'm just saying that regardless of the ruling, protocols aren't copyrighted. I said nothing about a particular implementation, but a code API, unlike a REST protocol, is a fixed expression. If that fixed expression is copyrighted, then what the copyright protects is a whole other discussion. Harry Potter is a fixed expression, but once applied, its copyright doesn't protect just a particular sequence of words, but various derivations of it as well (like translations). As to whether or not what this case is about is "in conflict with previous definitions of copyright," I have no opinion of the matter.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    Yet again, the distinction you're making isn't one rooted in these rulings. The combo of striking down de minimus and entertaining that APIs can have copyright applies equally to REST, unless you can come up with a way for a server to not have the endpoint string literals in their code. What you're describing is "how it should be", not the current state of the world.
    - pron 7y ago
      Why would the distinction be rooted in the ruling? If there are, say, three conditions for copyrightability, and a work satisfies the first to but the third is unclear, then why would the ruling in that particular case even mention works that don't satisfy the first condition? > applies equally to REST Nope. This is a case about a verbatim copy of about two hundred pages of text (11,500 lines). There are interesting legal questions about whether or not the text is copyrighted (because software copyright is more limited than some other forms of copyright), but REST protocols aren't a fixed piece of text to begin with. They are just not works that copyright law deals with. > unless you can come up with a way for a server to not have the endpoint string literals in their code. There is no problem with string literals. None of the words in Harry Potter is copyrighted, and most books, or program with string literals, containing all of them don't infringe on Harry Potter's copyright.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        How do you define, implement, or use a REST endpoint, without verbatim using the endpoint names? And the length of the verbatim copying doesn't matter, because these same ruling are rejecting de minimus claims. Like please look up the legal rulings here. They're using different tests than you normally see with copyright. You're spreading a lot of misinformation here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...
        pron 7y ago
        > How do you define, implement, or use a REST endpoint, without verbatim using the endpoint names? You can use names verbatim. You can write a book with the names "Harry" and "Ron" and even "Dumbledore" without violating Harry Potter's copyright. In fact, if you take Harry Potter, translate it to French and change all the names so that not a single word is copied verbatim, that is a copyright violation. But regardless of what you copy, in order for a work to be protected by copyright at all, it must be some fixed piece of text (or an image, or an audio/video recording). REST protocols aren't. > They're using different tests than you normally see with copyright. You're spreading a lot of misinformation here. I'm not talking about this case, but about why this case doesn't apply -- whatever the result -- to REST protocols. What you linked to is about the following: Once a work is protected by copyright, what kind of derivations are disallowed? For example, Harry Potter is copyrighted, but I don't make a verbatim copy but a French translation. Is that protected or not? What about basic plot lines? But any such discussions are irrelevant to algorithms and protocols, which are not copyrightable works to begin with. There is also a question about code APIs, because there are other necessary conditions for copyright, but there's no question about protocols, as they don't satisfy the first condition -- there is no fixed work at all. Anyone who says this could affect protocols is spreading misinformation. Whether code APIs are copyrighted or not, protocols, like algorithms, aren't.

by pron 7y ago

monocasa 7y ago

This whole case is about the "Structure, Sequence, and Organization" of the API. It's the abstract collection of API entry points, not any specific implementations. Yes, it's openly in conflict of previous definitions of copyright.

pron 7y ago
Yet again, I am not talking about whether code API is copyrighted or not; I'm just saying that regardless of the ruling, protocols aren't copyrighted. I said nothing about a particular implementation, but a code API, unlike a REST protocol, is a fixed expression. If that fixed expression is copyrighted, then what the copyright protects is a whole other discussion. Harry Potter is a fixed expression, but once applied, its copyright doesn't protect just a particular sequence of words, but various derivations of it as well (like translations). As to whether or not what this case is about is "in conflict with previous definitions of copyright," I have no opinion of the matter.
- monocasa 7y ago
  Yet again, the distinction you're making isn't one rooted in these rulings. The combo of striking down de minimus and entertaining that APIs can have copyright applies equally to REST, unless you can come up with a way for a server to not have the endpoint string literals in their code. What you're describing is "how it should be", not the current state of the world.
  - pron 7y ago
    Why would the distinction be rooted in the ruling? If there are, say, three conditions for copyrightability, and a work satisfies the first to but the third is unclear, then why would the ruling in that particular case even mention works that don't satisfy the first condition? > applies equally to REST Nope. This is a case about a verbatim copy of about two hundred pages of text (11,500 lines). There are interesting legal questions about whether or not the text is copyrighted (because software copyright is more limited than some other forms of copyright), but REST protocols aren't a fixed piece of text to begin with. They are just not works that copyright law deals with. > unless you can come up with a way for a server to not have the endpoint string literals in their code. There is no problem with string literals. None of the words in Harry Potter is copyrighted, and most books, or program with string literals, containing all of them don't infringe on Harry Potter's copyright.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      How do you define, implement, or use a REST endpoint, without verbatim using the endpoint names? And the length of the verbatim copying doesn't matter, because these same ruling are rejecting de minimus claims. Like please look up the legal rulings here. They're using different tests than you normally see with copyright. You're spreading a lot of misinformation here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...
      - pron 7y ago
        > How do you define, implement, or use a REST endpoint, without verbatim using the endpoint names? You can use names verbatim. You can write a book with the names "Harry" and "Ron" and even "Dumbledore" without violating Harry Potter's copyright. In fact, if you take Harry Potter, translate it to French and change all the names so that not a single word is copied verbatim, that is a copyright violation. But regardless of what you copy, in order for a work to be protected by copyright at all, it must be some fixed piece of text (or an image, or an audio/video recording). REST protocols aren't. > They're using different tests than you normally see with copyright. You're spreading a lot of misinformation here. I'm not talking about this case, but about why this case doesn't apply -- whatever the result -- to REST protocols. What you linked to is about the following: Once a work is protected by copyright, what kind of derivations are disallowed? For example, Harry Potter is copyrighted, but I don't make a verbatim copy but a French translation. Is that protected or not? What about basic plot lines? But any such discussions are irrelevant to algorithms and protocols, which are not copyrightable works to begin with. There is also a question about code APIs, because there are other necessary conditions for copyright, but there's no question about protocols, as they don't satisfy the first condition -- there is no fixed work at all. Anyone who says this could affect protocols is spreading misinformation. Whether code APIs are copyrighted or not, protocols, like algorithms, aren't.