4 ms·

> Copyright is not some innate right. Interfaces should not be copyrightable just because they require some level of competence to design. The purpose of copyr

> Copyright is not some innate right. Interfaces should not be copyrightable just because they require some level of competence to design. The purpose of copyright, according to the constitution is "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts". So generally, things should be copyrightable if granting the copyright results in more and higher quality work. If APIs are indeed protected, there it is plausible argument that we will have more of them and they will be of higher quality.

wtallis 7y ago
> If APIs are indeed protected, there it is plausible argument that we will have more of them and they will be of higher quality. Sure, but that immediately brings to mind the question of whether such fragmentation will be a hindrance to technological progress. And there's little doubt about which way the evidence tilts on that question—there's way too much mainstream software that would not have been legal without the right to reimplement an API without a license. So then it becomes a question of whether it is better for the law to promote good API design, or to promote actual useful software.
michaelmrose 7y ago
The idea that giving people an effectively eternal copyright interest in making interoperable software would improve software strains credulity. It seems extremely likely that the human race may not exist long enough for current works to ever have their copyright expire.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > The idea that giving people an effectively eternal copyright interest in making interoperable software would improve software strains credulity. Why would it? Giving a company the right to prevent interoperability does not necessarily mean they will invoke that right. It also might promote alternative APIs potentially fragmenting the market, but also inventivizing various approaches. It's not clear that this is the case, but it's not clear that it isn't either.
  - teruakohatu 7y ago
    > ... but also inventivizing various approaches You may as well argue standards have lowered innovation. > Giving a company the right to prevent interoperability does not necessarily mean they will invoke that right I hope that whoever created int max(int a, int b) is benevolent because just about every programmer has reinvented that at some point. What about Response get(String url) which returns an HTTP GET response. We have probably all written that at some point and most HTTP libraries implement it.
    - speedplane 7y ago
      > I hope that whoever created int max(int a, int b) is benevolent because just about every programmer has reinvented that at some point. What about Response get(String url) which returns an HTTP GET response. We have probably all written that at some point and most HTTP libraries implement it. FUD. You're using extreme arguments that traditional copyright law handles them well. API functions like "max" or "get" are so basic and general that they would not be protected by copyright law because they are not original "creative" works... a "max" function can only be written in a few ways that don't really rise to the level of creativity. However, a massive amalgamation of functions and classes, could be protected. I don't see any theoretical reason why they shouldn't, just practical ones based on what the software industry has expected as standard behavior.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    It means most will or alternatively their next of kin 10 or 30 years later. The human race hasn't proved benevolently disposed without a positive social norm to abide by in the entire REST of human history. Given the choice between honest work and preying on our fellow human being its always easier to exploit. This is why despite being proposed as a means to inspire creation copyright theoretically expires 7O years after you die and realistically never. Once someone has conceived of a way to extract value out of their fellow human beings that extraction becomes a right regardless of how it effects civilization as a whole and most of this value doesn't even flow to creators it flows to soulless intermediaries who have inserted themselves between creator and consumer. Why given the opportunity to exploit more would they NOT?
hoseja 7y ago
The purpose is actually so that nobody can make Mickey Mouse merch. Everything else is obfuscation.
imtringued 7y ago
That is an argument for the idea of copyright itself. It's not an argument in favor of the current system and it also proves no justification to expand the current system.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > That is an argument for the idea of copyright itself. It's not an argument in favor of the current system and it also proves no justification to expand the current system. You're wrong. The constitution grounds copyright (and other IP rights), in utilitarianism. Meaning, if granting stronger protection promotes overall welfare, then that is justification. The problem with utilitarianism is that it's very difficult to determine what is greater "overall welfare". By its nature, it's an empirical decision. Once you start invoking data (rather than basic rights), lots of people and companies will come out of the woodwork to promote their own data points.
cloverich 7y ago
We will have more of them, but they would be of _lower_ quality. Because they could no longer build off one another. You would start to see different API's because they _had_ to be different, not because they were better.
- wtallis 7y ago
  For an example of how this plays out, look at the proliferation of desktop GUIs in the late 80s and into the 90s. Everybody was throwing in gratuitous differences in the hopes of making their look and feel "different enough" to avoid a lawsuit. So we ended up with a mess: swapping the location of "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, every platform's scroll bars behaved differently, "Trash" vs "Recycle", and so on. There was some well-intentioned experimentation to see if the status quo could be improved, but those good ideas couldn't spread and become universal.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > look at the proliferation of desktop GUIs in the late 80s and into the 90s. Everybody was throwing in gratuitous differences in the hopes of making their look and feel "different enough" to avoid a lawsuit. So we ended up with a mess: swapping the location of "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, every platform's scroll bars behaved differently I don't see this as a mess at all. I see this as very positive experimentation and eventual consolidation. Would it really be better if one company came up with a GUI and everyone latched on to it?

wtallis 7y ago

> If APIs are indeed protected, there it is plausible argument that we will have more of them and they will be of higher quality. Sure, but that immediately brings to mind the question of whether such fragmentation will be a hindrance to technological progress. And there's little doubt about which way the evidence tilts on that question—there's way too much mainstream software that would not have been legal without the right to reimplement an API without a license. So then it becomes a question of whether it is better for the law to promote good API design, or to promote actual useful software.

michaelmrose 7y ago

The idea that giving people an effectively eternal copyright interest in making interoperable software would improve software strains credulity. It seems extremely likely that the human race may not exist long enough for current works to ever have their copyright expire.

speedplane 7y ago
> The idea that giving people an effectively eternal copyright interest in making interoperable software would improve software strains credulity. Why would it? Giving a company the right to prevent interoperability does not necessarily mean they will invoke that right. It also might promote alternative APIs potentially fragmenting the market, but also inventivizing various approaches. It's not clear that this is the case, but it's not clear that it isn't either.
- teruakohatu 7y ago
  > ... but also inventivizing various approaches You may as well argue standards have lowered innovation. > Giving a company the right to prevent interoperability does not necessarily mean they will invoke that right I hope that whoever created int max(int a, int b) is benevolent because just about every programmer has reinvented that at some point. What about Response get(String url) which returns an HTTP GET response. We have probably all written that at some point and most HTTP libraries implement it.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > I hope that whoever created int max(int a, int b) is benevolent because just about every programmer has reinvented that at some point. What about Response get(String url) which returns an HTTP GET response. We have probably all written that at some point and most HTTP libraries implement it. FUD. You're using extreme arguments that traditional copyright law handles them well. API functions like "max" or "get" are so basic and general that they would not be protected by copyright law because they are not original "creative" works... a "max" function can only be written in a few ways that don't really rise to the level of creativity. However, a massive amalgamation of functions and classes, could be protected. I don't see any theoretical reason why they shouldn't, just practical ones based on what the software industry has expected as standard behavior.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  It means most will or alternatively their next of kin 10 or 30 years later. The human race hasn't proved benevolently disposed without a positive social norm to abide by in the entire REST of human history. Given the choice between honest work and preying on our fellow human being its always easier to exploit. This is why despite being proposed as a means to inspire creation copyright theoretically expires 7O years after you die and realistically never. Once someone has conceived of a way to extract value out of their fellow human beings that extraction becomes a right regardless of how it effects civilization as a whole and most of this value doesn't even flow to creators it flows to soulless intermediaries who have inserted themselves between creator and consumer. Why given the opportunity to exploit more would they NOT?

hoseja 7y ago

The purpose is actually so that nobody can make Mickey Mouse merch. Everything else is obfuscation.

imtringued 7y ago

That is an argument for the idea of copyright itself. It's not an argument in favor of the current system and it also proves no justification to expand the current system.

speedplane 7y ago
> That is an argument for the idea of copyright itself. It's not an argument in favor of the current system and it also proves no justification to expand the current system. You're wrong. The constitution grounds copyright (and other IP rights), in utilitarianism. Meaning, if granting stronger protection promotes overall welfare, then that is justification. The problem with utilitarianism is that it's very difficult to determine what is greater "overall welfare". By its nature, it's an empirical decision. Once you start invoking data (rather than basic rights), lots of people and companies will come out of the woodwork to promote their own data points.

cloverich 7y ago

We will have more of them, but they would be of _lower_ quality. Because they could no longer build off one another. You would start to see different API's because they _had_ to be different, not because they were better.

wtallis 7y ago
For an example of how this plays out, look at the proliferation of desktop GUIs in the late 80s and into the 90s. Everybody was throwing in gratuitous differences in the hopes of making their look and feel "different enough" to avoid a lawsuit. So we ended up with a mess: swapping the location of "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, every platform's scroll bars behaved differently, "Trash" vs "Recycle", and so on. There was some well-intentioned experimentation to see if the status quo could be improved, but those good ideas couldn't spread and become universal.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > look at the proliferation of desktop GUIs in the late 80s and into the 90s. Everybody was throwing in gratuitous differences in the hopes of making their look and feel "different enough" to avoid a lawsuit. So we ended up with a mess: swapping the location of "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, every platform's scroll bars behaved differently I don't see this as a mess at all. I see this as very positive experimentation and eventual consolidation. Would it really be better if one company came up with a GUI and everyone latched on to it?