On Dec 23, 1993 at 20:41, Rod Speed of 3:711/934 wrote:

 DB>> Computer software = "literary works" for the purposes
of copyright,
 DB>> or so I've been told.
 RS>
 RS> Thats very far from true. There are now specific provisions for software
 RS> copyright.

Indeed there are specific provisions, but they don't (to my knowledege) put
software into a class of their own:

    "Copyright extends to literary, artistic and musical works, as well as
    to films, records and radio and television broadcasts. ... Protection
    for literary and artistic works is the most important aspect for the
    computer industry. ...computer programs, as well as manuals and other
    written materials, are the proper subject matter of the category of
    literary works..."
                        - Knight and Fitzsimons

This was written post-Berne and the UCC.  I'm open to changes in the
legislation and/or agreements just as long as people will provide
references for me to check it out myself.  :-)

 RS> And even before that, much of the stuff like 'look and feel'

These may be covered by "artistic" copyright:

    "In the case of screen layouts, these may qualify as `artistic works'
    in their own right..."
                            - Knight and Fitzsimons

 RS> and the complete insanitys like owning a trash can icon are completely
 RS> different to whats seen with literary works.

They have been perceived as such, yes - but they were fought as traditional
artistic and literary copyrights.

 RS> Then there is the question of where with literary work you can safely copy
 RS> a small subset of a total work, nothing like that with software.

Generally because when you buy software, the licence explicitly prohibits
same, but in books it generally says "No reproduction except..".


    - dave
    david{at}harpo.nepean.uws.edu.au

---