3 ms·

> Is {X} copyrightable? Evidently yes, to the extent that {X} includes subjective properties that go beyond the fundamental function of {X}. To use file forma

> Is {X} copyrightable? Evidently yes, to the extent that {X} includes subjective properties that go beyond the fundamental function of {X}. To use file formats as an example, the fundamental function of an archive file format is to bundle a set of otherwise-independent files together. A basic archive file format that simply concatenates file contents together (and I guess the necessary header to identify the boundaries between them) wouldn’t be copyrightable. But a more advanced format that includes an index of included files might be, since the addition of the index is a product of some artistry by someone who thought it would be a helpful convenience for users. [1] Extended to the car example, “putting gas in tank” wouldn’t be copyrightable because no tank can function without gas. But improvements to the method of transferring that gas might be. Engaging a clutch is fundamental to the operation of a transmission and not copyrightable, but a clutch that is specially-designed to require less force might be. The key is an interesting case though... I suppose I’d have to say that mechanism would have been copyrightable, since one could start an engine in ways other than a key (maybe a crank or a push button), or perhaps because the idea to couple the unlocking mechanism to the engine start signal was a clever idea rather than a fundamental necessity. [1]: To my understanding, this is exactly the situation with “tar” and “zip,” though fortunately for us the “zip” format was contributed to the public domain rather than copyrighted.

sergeykish 6y ago
Are you sure you've described copyright and not patent?
- tylerchr 6y ago
  No. I thought copyrights protect literary and visual illustrations, but not any underlying processes, mechanisms, or artifacts they describe (patents protect those). My understanding of copyright law is surely flawed, and perhaps the “original work” standard means that only descriptions of systems are copyrightable and not the systems themselves. In that case I agree that my examples fail. Keys and clutches are mechanisms and filling gas is a process, and those aren’t copyrightable (but they are patentable). The file format example fails too, because the concept of laying out data in a particular way is a mere idea, and ideas aren’t copyrightable either (they are also not patentable, though a description of the format is copyrightable and a specific process for reading or writing the file might be patentable if it were nontrivial).
  - sergeykish 6y ago
    I've specifically mentioned GIF, MP3 protected by patents. MP3 patents encoding-decoding. > GIF images are compressed using the Lempel–Ziv–Welch (LZW) lossless data compression technique to reduce the file size without degrading the visual quality. This compression technique was patented in 1985. [1] x86 protected by patents: > Partly. For some advanced features, x86 may require license from Intel; x86-64 may require an additional license from AMD. The 80486 processor has been on the market for more than 20 years and so cannot be subject to patent claims. The pre-586 subset of the x86 architecture is therefore fully open. [2] One can build/emulate 80486 but not x86-64, SSE, AVX, VT-x etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

sergeykish 6y ago

Are you sure you've described copyright and not patent?

tylerchr 6y ago
No. I thought copyrights protect literary and visual illustrations, but not any underlying processes, mechanisms, or artifacts they describe (patents protect those). My understanding of copyright law is surely flawed, and perhaps the “original work” standard means that only descriptions of systems are copyrightable and not the systems themselves. In that case I agree that my examples fail. Keys and clutches are mechanisms and filling gas is a process, and those aren’t copyrightable (but they are patentable). The file format example fails too, because the concept of laying out data in a particular way is a mere idea, and ideas aren’t copyrightable either (they are also not patentable, though a description of the format is copyrightable and a specific process for reading or writing the file might be patentable if it were nontrivial).
- sergeykish 6y ago
  I've specifically mentioned GIF, MP3 protected by patents. MP3 patents encoding-decoding. > GIF images are compressed using the Lempel–Ziv–Welch (LZW) lossless data compression technique to reduce the file size without degrading the visual quality. This compression technique was patented in 1985. [1] x86 protected by patents: > Partly. For some advanced features, x86 may require license from Intel; x86-64 may require an additional license from AMD. The 80486 processor has been on the market for more than 20 years and so cannot be subject to patent claims. The pre-586 subset of the x86 architecture is therefore fully open. [2] One can build/emulate 80486 but not x86-64, SSE, AVX, VT-x etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86