3 ms·

Why can't we simply ask if this could be done for 'mechanical programming' and apply the same logic. You don't own that full mechanical engine's construction,

Why can't we simply ask if this could be done for 'mechanical programming' and apply the same logic. You don't own that full mechanical engine's construction, you just have a license to use it for the lifetime of the vehicle. If that wouldn't stand, then how is it any different than code except that code is on a much smaller and and more detailed level. At the end of the day, it is still physical components following the laws of physics to render some result. Does the fact it is more complicated allow for it to stand? In which case, how complex when the fully mechanical engine need to become for the same logic to be applied?

bsimpson 12y ago
The intangibility of code makes the marginal cost of a copy $0, which in turn raises the spectre of copyright law. You can't copy an engine made of steel, so copyright law is moot.
- userbinator 12y ago
  You can't copy an engine made of steel, so copyright law is moot. That's an interesting point, because you can literally build a copy of substantial portions of a car (engine, transmission, axles, brakes, etc.) from entirely aftermarket parts, for certain popular components. Many of these parts don't make any claims about licensing the designs from the original company but they do claim "drop-in" compatibility.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  But you can. The cost is higher, but you can make a copy. So if the cost is really small (not $0, but small) it changes? Also to note, in these cases, we are talking about both the code and the rest of the machine. Is this to say that if any part of the machine can be copied for close to $0, we can remove ownership? Any single piece of that engine can be easily and cheaply copied, so once again, why the difference?
  - bsimpson 12y ago
    Copyright law is an exception. The laws of the physical world mean that, if you give/sell an object to another party, you no longer have access to it yourself. This is where concepts like the first sale doctrine come into play - it's your one tangible thing, and you can do with it whatever you like. You control that one, and only that one, instance of the thing. Intangibles can be given/sold to another party without relinquishing your use of the original (because copies are free). You can buy one CD and gives copies of the music on it to 1,000,000 people without cost, and without giving up your right to the original. Even if you could copy an engine for relatively cheaply, the same economics do not apply. Therefore, an exception exists to our physical property laws to cover this edge case: copyright law. As userbinator notes, there are other areas of intellectual property law that may apply to physical goods (e.g. patents), but you asked what the difference is between digital programming and mechanical: the difference is that digital programming is intangible, so it can be copied ad naseum, so the ownership exception we call copyright law applies.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      But what makes it intangible? The really cheap (but still non-zero) cost to copy? In which case, why would this not apply to any physical machine that has a really cheap cost to copy? It seems the answer is 'Because it doesn't.' at which point I see copyright law needing to be overhauled. For example, why can my painting be protected by copyright but my engine design not? And if they are both protected by copyright, then why can't I just give a license to use the engine design while selling them the actual physical material (N kilos of iron, M kilos of carbon, etc.)?
skwirl 12y ago
Logic isn't applied, law is applied. The DMCA and associated copyright law distinguishes between these cases and puts these specific restrictions on one case and not the other. Just because something is analogous to another thing in some way doesn't mean both must be either legal or illegal together. You can put whatever you want into a law, so long as it is constitutional, and the Constitution explicitly provides Congress with the ability to enact copyright laws, even dumb ones.

bsimpson 12y ago

The intangibility of code makes the marginal cost of a copy $0, which in turn raises the spectre of copyright law. You can't copy an engine made of steel, so copyright law is moot.

userbinator 12y ago
You can't copy an engine made of steel, so copyright law is moot. That's an interesting point, because you can literally build a copy of substantial portions of a car (engine, transmission, axles, brakes, etc.) from entirely aftermarket parts, for certain popular components. Many of these parts don't make any claims about licensing the designs from the original company but they do claim "drop-in" compatibility.
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
But you can. The cost is higher, but you can make a copy. So if the cost is really small (not $0, but small) it changes? Also to note, in these cases, we are talking about both the code and the rest of the machine. Is this to say that if any part of the machine can be copied for close to $0, we can remove ownership? Any single piece of that engine can be easily and cheaply copied, so once again, why the difference?
- bsimpson 12y ago
  Copyright law is an exception. The laws of the physical world mean that, if you give/sell an object to another party, you no longer have access to it yourself. This is where concepts like the first sale doctrine come into play - it's your one tangible thing, and you can do with it whatever you like. You control that one, and only that one, instance of the thing. Intangibles can be given/sold to another party without relinquishing your use of the original (because copies are free). You can buy one CD and gives copies of the music on it to 1,000,000 people without cost, and without giving up your right to the original. Even if you could copy an engine for relatively cheaply, the same economics do not apply. Therefore, an exception exists to our physical property laws to cover this edge case: copyright law. As userbinator notes, there are other areas of intellectual property law that may apply to physical goods (e.g. patents), but you asked what the difference is between digital programming and mechanical: the difference is that digital programming is intangible, so it can be copied ad naseum, so the ownership exception we call copyright law applies.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    But what makes it intangible? The really cheap (but still non-zero) cost to copy? In which case, why would this not apply to any physical machine that has a really cheap cost to copy? It seems the answer is 'Because it doesn't.' at which point I see copyright law needing to be overhauled. For example, why can my painting be protected by copyright but my engine design not? And if they are both protected by copyright, then why can't I just give a license to use the engine design while selling them the actual physical material (N kilos of iron, M kilos of carbon, etc.)?

skwirl 12y ago

Logic isn't applied, law is applied. The DMCA and associated copyright law distinguishes between these cases and puts these specific restrictions on one case and not the other. Just because something is analogous to another thing in some way doesn't mean both must be either legal or illegal together. You can put whatever you want into a law, so long as it is constitutional, and the Constitution explicitly provides Congress with the ability to enact copyright laws, even dumb ones.