3 ms·

Yes, malicious code is protected by copyright. Antivirus software isn't distributing the copyrighted virus, and I can't begin to wrap my head around the concep

by rosser 11y ago

Yes, malicious code is protected by copyright. Antivirus software isn't distributing the copyrighted virus, and I can't begin to wrap my head around the conception you must have of how they work, in order to think they do. Copyright is utterly irrelevant to the relationship between computer virii and antivirus software.

shmerl 11y ago
> Antivirus software isn't distributing the copyrighted virus Why not? Many of them include patterns for detecting viruses, which literally contain originals in some way (partially at least). There are tons of malware types, including one that's not polymorphic. Regardless, even if they include malware in full, it should be perfectly fine under fair use. I.e. that malware souldn't be protected by the copyright in such case (because it's for the purpose of security).
- rosser 11y ago
  Fair use doesn't remove a copyrighted work's protections. What ever gave you that idea? Think of it in criminal law terms: it's like the "affirmative defense" that having a medical marijuana card gives you in states that have such programs. Pot is still illegal, but if you get caught with some, and have a card (and are compliant with the restrictions of your local MMJ program), then the charges are dismissed. It doesn't change the law; it changes how the law applies to you.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    > Fair use doesn't remove a copyrighted work's protections. It doesn't remove them, it just says that that they aren't even applicable in that case. I.e. there is nothing to remove when it's not there to begin with. I agree that it's somewhat poorly defined that's why there can be different ways to view it. See https://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php https://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php Approach of "affirmative defense" doesn't sound logical to me. Approach of limiting copyright applicability makes more sense. I.e. fair use defines some borders beyond which copyright can't reach.
    - wvenable 11y ago
      Fair use is a defense against claims of copyright infringement. In other words, claiming fair use will not keep the law suit from being filed but you can use it as a defense. It isn't a direct limit on copyright applicability. In other words, distribution of a copyrighted material isn't considered fair use until a judge says it is.
      - shmerl 11y ago
        > Fair use is a defense against claims of copyright infringement. That's an interpretation of what fair use is. Another one says that it defines public rights, as in limiting the reach of copyright. I.e. it defines exceptions to where copyright applies (and this makes perfect sense to me, unlike the other interpretation). I.e. it defines uncopyrightable scenarios. The problem is that the law itself is not clearly defined, that's why it becomes a matter of interpretation and is given to judges to handle. May be copyright reform can fix this making this an explicit right in the law to avoid this ambiguity.
        rosser 11y ago
        If copyright worked the way you seem to think it does, then the GP's scenario — where someone using a work under Fair Use terms could still be sued, and then has to prove that their use was legitimately Fair Use — wouldn't be the norm. But it is. So, there's how you appear to think it works, and there's how it works in the world outside your skull. It turns out, that things in the real world are sometimes sloppy, or inefficient, or illogical, or just plain weird; just because something makes "more" or "perfect" sense to you doesn't begin to make it correct.
        shmerl 11y ago
        > If copyright worked the way you seem to think it does, then the GP's scenario — where someone using a work under Fair Use terms could still be sued, and then has to prove that their use was legitimately Fair Use — wouldn't be the norm. So where did presumption of innocence go? I know it's tossed out all the time in copyright (that's the core of the whole DRM approach), but it's not supposed to be that way. If they claim that copyright is violated, they need to prove it (i.e. violation and lack of fair use), and not those who say it was fair use need to prove they have that right. And if you say that's what's going on in practice (presumption of guilt) - then the whole system is seriously perverted and requires deep fixing.

by rosser 11y ago

shmerl 11y ago

> Antivirus software isn't distributing the copyrighted virus Why not? Many of them include patterns for detecting viruses, which literally contain originals in some way (partially at least). There are tons of malware types, including one that's not polymorphic. Regardless, even if they include malware in full, it should be perfectly fine under fair use. I.e. that malware souldn't be protected by the copyright in such case (because it's for the purpose of security).

rosser 11y ago
Fair use doesn't remove a copyrighted work's protections. What ever gave you that idea? Think of it in criminal law terms: it's like the "affirmative defense" that having a medical marijuana card gives you in states that have such programs. Pot is still illegal, but if you get caught with some, and have a card (and are compliant with the restrictions of your local MMJ program), then the charges are dismissed. It doesn't change the law; it changes how the law applies to you.
- shmerl 11y ago
  > Fair use doesn't remove a copyrighted work's protections. It doesn't remove them, it just says that that they aren't even applicable in that case. I.e. there is nothing to remove when it's not there to begin with. I agree that it's somewhat poorly defined that's why there can be different ways to view it. See https://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php https://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php Approach of "affirmative defense" doesn't sound logical to me. Approach of limiting copyright applicability makes more sense. I.e. fair use defines some borders beyond which copyright can't reach.
  - wvenable 11y ago
    Fair use is a defense against claims of copyright infringement. In other words, claiming fair use will not keep the law suit from being filed but you can use it as a defense. It isn't a direct limit on copyright applicability. In other words, distribution of a copyrighted material isn't considered fair use until a judge says it is.
    - shmerl 11y ago
      > Fair use is a defense against claims of copyright infringement. That's an interpretation of what fair use is. Another one says that it defines public rights, as in limiting the reach of copyright. I.e. it defines exceptions to where copyright applies (and this makes perfect sense to me, unlike the other interpretation). I.e. it defines uncopyrightable scenarios. The problem is that the law itself is not clearly defined, that's why it becomes a matter of interpretation and is given to judges to handle. May be copyright reform can fix this making this an explicit right in the law to avoid this ambiguity.
      - rosser 11y ago
        If copyright worked the way you seem to think it does, then the GP's scenario — where someone using a work under Fair Use terms could still be sued, and then has to prove that their use was legitimately Fair Use — wouldn't be the norm. But it is. So, there's how you appear to think it works, and there's how it works in the world outside your skull. It turns out, that things in the real world are sometimes sloppy, or inefficient, or illogical, or just plain weird; just because something makes "more" or "perfect" sense to you doesn't begin to make it correct.
        shmerl 11y ago
        > If copyright worked the way you seem to think it does, then the GP's scenario — where someone using a work under Fair Use terms could still be sued, and then has to prove that their use was legitimately Fair Use — wouldn't be the norm. So where did presumption of innocence go? I know it's tossed out all the time in copyright (that's the core of the whole DRM approach), but it's not supposed to be that way. If they claim that copyright is violated, they need to prove it (i.e. violation and lack of fair use), and not those who say it was fair use need to prove they have that right. And if you say that's what's going on in practice (presumption of guilt) - then the whole system is seriously perverted and requires deep fixing.