4 ms·

> the original authors did not write the decompiled source This isn't anything new or unique to programming. In the same way if I were to transcribe a movie (l

> the original authors did not write the decompiled source This isn't anything new or unique to programming. In the same way if I were to transcribe a movie (let's say it's a silent movie) to a script, it would still be that movie. Or if I were to translate a book into Klingon . Or even do a cover song of "Beat It" entirely with throat singing. Copyright would still apply.

thescriptkiddie 1y ago
> Or even do a cover song of "Beat It" entirely with throat singing. Copyright would still apply. bad example, in this specific case copyright would actually not apply
- ThatPlayer 1y ago
  Could you explain why not? That's exactly the kind of thing a mechanical license would give: the right to cover a song. The difference with music is by law they have to let you obain a compulsory mechanical license.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp. > The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). > Object code cannot, however, be read by humans. > The unprotected ideas and functions of the code therefore are frequently undiscoverable in the absence of investigation and translation that may require copying the copyrighted material. > We conclude that, under the facts of this case and our precedent, Connectix's intermediate copying and use of Sony's copyrighted BIOS was a fair use for the purpose of gaining access to the unprotected elements of Sony's software. Not only are the methods of operation which underlie the code completely unprotected by copyright, the copying of and the application of tools to the code for the purpose of exercising your right to discover those unprotected elements is fair use.
    - ThatPlayer 1y ago
      That doesn't cover mainstream distribution. Fair use is only "intermediate copying" for translation. That doesn't mean copyright doesn't apply. Even the part you quoted still refers to it as "copyrighted material" and "copyrighted BIOS".
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        It absolutely covers the distribution of your implementation of the unprotected ideas and elements.
        ThatPlayer 1y ago
        Which is not the same thing as decompiled code, because that's their implementation.
  - thescriptkiddie 1y ago
    oh i misunderstood, i was thinking about live performances. unfortunately you do technically have to obtain a license from the composer in order to sell a recording of a cover.
matheusmoreira 1y ago
The method of operation is not protected by copyright. You can write a program that works just like the proprietary software.
- AshamedCaptain 1y ago
  Yeah, good luck explaining to any judge that by chance you wrote a program that oh it hust happens to be identical to a copyrighted one. It even loads the same data files and save files.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    Two programs can work the same way and still be distinct, independently developed works. This is especially true of programs that have to work in certain ways in order to be compatible. Game companies back then had a "trademark security system". Their hardware wouldn't execute your software unless you wrote the company's name to some memory location somewhere. If you did that and you didn't have a license, they'd sue you for trademark infringement. Well it went to court and judges found that not only was this "infringement" fair, it was the trademark holders themselves who were at fault for creating this stupid system where competitors had to infringe their trademarks in order to create interoperable software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade > Accolade's decompilation of the Sega software constituted fair use. > the use of the software was non-exploitative, despite being commercial > the trademark infringement, being required by the TMSS for a Genesis game to run on the system, was inadvertently triggered by a fair use act and the fault of Sega for causing false labeling Such was the wonderful world before the DMCA and its criminalization of "circumvention". The hard part isn't explaining things to judges, it's coming up with the fortunes necessary to pay lawyers to do it. That's why the big corporations have the advantage. They can afford to be wrong. In fact, it is literally their strategy to outlast their opponents in court by burning their money in legal fees. They can afford it, small companies can't and individuals will be literally bankrupted.
    - AshamedCaptain 1y ago

thescriptkiddie 1y ago

> Or even do a cover song of "Beat It" entirely with throat singing. Copyright would still apply. bad example, in this specific case copyright would actually not apply

ThatPlayer 1y ago
Could you explain why not? That's exactly the kind of thing a mechanical license would give: the right to cover a song. The difference with music is by law they have to let you obain a compulsory mechanical license.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp. > The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). > Object code cannot, however, be read by humans. > The unprotected ideas and functions of the code therefore are frequently undiscoverable in the absence of investigation and translation that may require copying the copyrighted material. > We conclude that, under the facts of this case and our precedent, Connectix's intermediate copying and use of Sony's copyrighted BIOS was a fair use for the purpose of gaining access to the unprotected elements of Sony's software. Not only are the methods of operation which underlie the code completely unprotected by copyright, the copying of and the application of tools to the code for the purpose of exercising your right to discover those unprotected elements is fair use.
  - ThatPlayer 1y ago
    That doesn't cover mainstream distribution. Fair use is only "intermediate copying" for translation. That doesn't mean copyright doesn't apply. Even the part you quoted still refers to it as "copyrighted material" and "copyrighted BIOS".
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      It absolutely covers the distribution of your implementation of the unprotected ideas and elements.
      - ThatPlayer 1y ago
        Which is not the same thing as decompiled code, because that's their implementation.
- thescriptkiddie 1y ago
  oh i misunderstood, i was thinking about live performances. unfortunately you do technically have to obtain a license from the composer in order to sell a recording of a cover.

matheusmoreira 1y ago

The method of operation is not protected by copyright. You can write a program that works just like the proprietary software.

AshamedCaptain 1y ago
Yeah, good luck explaining to any judge that by chance you wrote a program that oh it hust happens to be identical to a copyrighted one. It even loads the same data files and save files.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  Two programs can work the same way and still be distinct, independently developed works. This is especially true of programs that have to work in certain ways in order to be compatible. Game companies back then had a "trademark security system". Their hardware wouldn't execute your software unless you wrote the company's name to some memory location somewhere. If you did that and you didn't have a license, they'd sue you for trademark infringement. Well it went to court and judges found that not only was this "infringement" fair, it was the trademark holders themselves who were at fault for creating this stupid system where competitors had to infringe their trademarks in order to create interoperable software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade > Accolade's decompilation of the Sega software constituted fair use. > the use of the software was non-exploitative, despite being commercial > the trademark infringement, being required by the TMSS for a Genesis game to run on the system, was inadvertently triggered by a fair use act and the fault of Sega for causing false labeling Such was the wonderful world before the DMCA and its criminalization of "circumvention". The hard part isn't explaining things to judges, it's coming up with the fortunes necessary to pay lawyers to do it. That's why the big corporations have the advantage. They can afford to be wrong. In fact, it is literally their strategy to outlast their opponents in court by burning their money in legal fees. They can afford it, small companies can't and individuals will be literally bankrupted.
  - AshamedCaptain 1y ago