4 ms·

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

• 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.
    • monocasa 7y ago
      > You can use names verbatim. If this ruling passes the Supreme Court, you can't anymore in the context of software. That's the whole point of what has people up in arms. These points of copyright are left to the courts, and they can change the rules if they see fit. I really don't understand your outright refusal to read the ruling or even the damn wiki page. I won't be responding to you anymore until you make a good faith effort.
      • pron 7y ago
        > If this ruling passes the Supreme Court, you can't anymore in the context of software. This is simply and totally untrue; it is nothing but uninformed panic. If you think otherwise, please point me to what makes you think that. In any event, a protocol is not a copyrightable work regardless of the result of this case, for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the discussion about the copyrightability of code APIs. Code APIs satisfy the basic necessary conditions for copyright, and there is debate over more nuanced ones. Protocols, like REST APIs, don't even satisfy the first requirement of copyright law -- they are not a work fixed in any tangible medium -- so they are completely irrelevant. Again, programs are copyrighted, algorithms are not -- even if the algorithms contain some fixed strings in them. If you don't understand that distinction, there is really no point in going further. > I really don't understand your outright refusal to read the ruling or even the damn wiki page. I have read pretty much everything written about this case, and the actual rulings. But understanding the basic tenets of copyright law is necessary in order to make sense of what you read. The question of SSO is, once a work is copyrighted, is its SSO protected similarly to translation? For example, Harry Potter is copyrighted; if I copy the basic structure from Harry Potter is that an infringement? That's the subject of the discussion, which takes as a given that software is copyrighted. In the case of protocols -- like in the case of algorithms -- there is no work from the perspective of copyright law, so questions of what transformations of the work could constitute infringement are irrelevant. I think that many people don't understand that copyright works like a two-stage process. First there needs to be a work satisfying some requirement to which copyright applies; second, once such a work exists, different kinds of deriving other works from it are determined to be infringing or not. This court case is about the second part, as it is recognized that software is a copyrighted work, and all discussions about the second step (like SSO) are under the assumption that the first step is OK. Protocols and algorithms don't even pass the first step, so any discusssion about the second does not concern them.