Open-Source Software and the Rationale for Copyright Protection of Computer Programs

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Open-Source Software and the Rationale for Copyright Protection of Computer Programs Open-source software and the rationale for copyright protection of computer programs by Sadulla Karjiker Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Laws in the Faculty of Law at Stellenbosch University Promoter: Prof Owen Henry Dean March 2013 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the authorship owner thereof (unless to the extent explicitly otherwise stated) and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Date: 19 February 2013 Copyright © 2013 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved ii Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstract The rationale for the legal protection of copyright works is based on the perceived need to encourage the creation of works which are considered to be socially beneficial. By awarding authors proprietary rights in their creations, copyright law allows authors the ability to earn direct financial returns from their efforts, and, thus, copyright law provides the required incentives for authors to create copyright works. Since the early days of commercial software development, copyright protection has been extended to computer programs; thus, by providing such protection it was assumed that their production should be encouraged, and that without such protection they will not be produced to the extent required by society. Comparatively recently, we have witnessed large-scale production of open-source software, which is licensed on generous terms, giving users the right to freely use, modify and redistribute such software. By adopting such licensing terms, the authors of open- source software are unable to charge licensees a fee for permission to use their software, which is the reward which copyright assumes authors seek to create such software. This development has made it necessary to re-evaluate the rationale for copyright protection of computer programs, and determine whether the continued protection of computer programs is justifiable. This study seeks to first establish a coherent theoretical justification for copyright protection, which it is submitted should be an economic justification, rather than a moral justification. The legal analysis in this work seeks to establish whether the copyright protection of computer programs is consistent with the economic justification for copyright protection. In particular, the analysis focuses on the current scope of copyright protection, and seeks to establish whether such protection is excessive, stifling creativity and innovation, and, thus, imposing too high a social cost. It is contended that copyright doctrine has generally sought to minimise these costs, and that current scope of copyright protection of computer programs leaves enough creative room for the production of new software. Despite the fact that the effect of open-source software licences is that authors are unable to earn the direct financial rewards which copyright enables authors to earn as an incentive to create such software, their authors continue to Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za have financial incentives to create such software. Commercial firms who invest in open-source software do so because they seek to provide financially-rewarding related services in respect of software, or because it serves to promote sales in their complementary products. Similarly, the participation of individual computer programmers is largely consistent with the standard economic theories relating to labour markets and the private provision of public goods. Individuals are principally motivated by economic motives, such as career concerns. Copyright protection gives participants the choice to opt for the direct financial rewards which its proprietary protection enables, or the more indirect financial rewards of open-source software development. It is submitted within this research that rather than undermining the rationale for copyright protection of computer programs, the development of open-source software has illustrated that copyright protection allows for the emergence of alternative business models, which may be more economically advantageous to authors. ii Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstrak Die rasionaal agter outeursregbeskerming wat deur die reg verleen word is gebasseer op 'n behoefte om die skepping van werke wat sosiaal voordelig geag word te bevorder. Outeursreg verleen aan outeurs direkte finansiële vergoeding vir hul inspanning deur die vestiging van eiendomsreg oor hul werke. Dus, outeursreg voorsien outeurs van die nodige insentiewe om sulke werke te skep. Sedert die begindae van kommersiële sagteware ontwikkeling, is outeursregbeskerming uitgebrei om aan rekenaarprogramme sulke beskerming te bied. Deur die bied van outeursregbeskerming word daar aangeneem dat die ontwikkeling van rekenaarprogramme aangemoedig word en dat sonder die genoemde beskerming programme nie geproduseer sal word tot in 'n mate benodig deur die samelewing nie. Onlangs egter, is daar 'n grootskaalse ontwikkeling van oopbronsagteware opgemerk. Hierdie sagteware word onder ruime terme gelisensieer en gee aan gebruikers die reg om die genoemde sagteware te gebruik, te wysig en vrylik te versprei. Deur sulke terme van lisensiëring aan te neem word outeurs verhoed om vanaf lisensiehouers 'n fooi te vorder vir die toestemming om die sagteware te gebruik. Outeursreg neem aan dat hierdie vergoeding die basis vorm waarom outeurs sulke sagteware ontwikkel. Hierdie ontwikkeling maak dit nodig om die rasionaal agter outeursregbeskerming van rekenaarprogramme te her-evalueer en ook om vas te stel of die volgehoue beskerming van rekenaarprogramme regverdigbaar is. Hierdie studie poog om, eerstens, 'n samehangende teoretiese regverdiging vir outeursreg te vestig. Daar word aan die hand gedoen dat hierdie beskerming 'n ekonomiese, eerder as 'n morele regverdiging as grondslag moet hê. Die regsontleding vervat in hierdie werk poog om vas te stel of die outeursregbeskerming wat aan rekenaarprogramme verleen word in lyn is met die ekonomiese regverdiging van outeursregbeskerming. Die analise fokus in besonder op die huidige bestek van outeursregbeskerming en poog om vas te stel of sodanige beskerming oormatig is, of dit kreatiwiteit en innovasie onderdruk en derhalwe te hoë sosiale koste tot gevolg het. Daar word geargumenteer dat outeursreg in die iii Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za algemeen poog om sosiale koste te verlaag en dat die huidige omvang van outeursregbeskerming van rekenaarprogramme voldoende kreatiewe ruimte vir die ontwikkeling van nuwe sagteware laat. Die effek van oopbronsagteware is dat outeurs nie in staat is om direkte finansiële vergoeding te verdien, wat as insentief gesien word vir die ontwikkeling van sagteware, nie. Ten spyte hiervan is daar steeds voldoende finansiële insentiewe om sodanige sagteware te ontwikkel. Kommersiële firmas belê in oopbronsagteware om finansiëel lonende verwante dienste ten opsigte van sagteware te voorsien. Dit kan ook dien om verkope in hul onderskeie aanvullende produkte te bevorder. Eweweens is die deelname van individuele rekenaarprogrameerders oorwegend in lyn met die standaard ekonomiese teoriëe ten opsigte van die arbeidsmark en die privaat voorsiening van openbare goedere. Individue word gemotiveer deur ekonomiese motiewe, soos byvoorbeeld oorwegings wat verband hou met hul loopbane. Outeursregbeskerming bied aan deelnemers die keuse om voordeel te trek uit die direkte finansiële vergoeding wat moontlik gemaak word deur outeursregbeskerming of uit die meer indirekte finansiële vergoeding gebied deur die ontwikkeling van oopbronsagteware. In hierdie navorsing word daar geargumenteer dat die ontwikkeling van oopbronsagteware geillustreer het dat outeursregbeskerming die onstaan van alternatiewe besigheidsmodelle toelaat wat ekonomies meer voordelig is vir outeurs in plaas daarvan dat dit die rasionaal vir die outeursregbeskerming van rekenaarprogramme ondermyn. iv Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za In memory of my grandfather, Osman Jacob Karjiker, and my parents, Abdurahman Osman Karjiker and Ayesha Karjiker (née Rawoot), for all the sacrifices made and their relentless insistence on the pursuit of education To Nazeera Karjiker (née Moola) for her care, patience and support v Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Table of contents Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: History of copyright and the moral justifications for copyright protection ......................................................................................................... 6 2 1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 6 2 2 Why seek justifications? ......................................................................... 6 2 3 Description and nature of copyright ..................................................... 10 2 4 The historical role of justifications in the development of copyright ...... 21 2 5 Classification of justifications ............................................................... 32 2 6 Labour-based justifications .................................................................. 35 2 6 1 Natural rights theory ...................................................................... 35 2 6 1 1 John Locke ............................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Romanian Political Science Review Vol. XXI, No. 1 2021
    Romanian Political Science Review vol. XXI, no. 1 2021 The end of the Cold War, and the extinction of communism both as an ideology and a practice of government, not only have made possible an unparalleled experiment in building a democratic order in Central and Eastern Europe, but have opened up a most extraordinary intellectual opportunity: to understand, compare and eventually appraise what had previously been neither understandable nor comparable. Studia Politica. Romanian Political Science Review was established in the realization that the problems and concerns of both new and old democracies are beginning to converge. The journal fosters the work of the first generations of Romanian political scientists permeated by a sense of critical engagement with European and American intellectual and political traditions that inspired and explained the modern notions of democracy, pluralism, political liberty, individual freedom, and civil rights. Believing that ideas do matter, the Editors share a common commitment as intellectuals and scholars to try to shed light on the major political problems facing Romania, a country that has recently undergone unprecedented political and social changes. They think of Studia Politica. Romanian Political Science Review as a challenge and a mandate to be involved in scholarly issues of fundamental importance, related not only to the democratization of Romanian polity and politics, to the “great transformation” that is taking place in Central and Eastern Europe, but also to the make-over of the assumptions and prospects of their discipline. They hope to be joined in by those scholars in other countries who feel that the demise of communism calls for a new political science able to reassess the very foundations of democratic ideals and procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Game's the Thing: Properties, Priorities and Perceptions in the Video Games Industries
    The game's the thing: properties, priorities and perceptions in the video games industries Mac Sithigh, D. (2017). The game's the thing: properties, priorities and perceptions in the video games industries. In M. Richardson, & S. Ricketson (Eds.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property in Media and Entertainment (pp. 344-366). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784710798 Published in: Research Handbook on Intellectual Property in Media and Entertainment Document Version: Peer reviewed version Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights Copyright 2017, the Author. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected]. Download date:25. Sep. 2021 The Game’s the Thing: Property, Priorities and Perceptions in the Video Games Industries Daithí Mac Síthigh* Published in Richardson and Ricketson (eds), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property in Media and Entertainment (Edward Elgar 2017) I.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Multimedia Danièle Bourcier, Melanie Dulong De Rosnay, Pompeu Casanovas, Maracke Catharina
    Intelligent Multimedia Danièle Bourcier, Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Pompeu Casanovas, Maracke Catharina To cite this version: Danièle Bourcier, Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Pompeu Casanovas, Maracke Catharina. Intelligent Multimedia. Danièle Bourcier, Pompeu Casanovas, Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay, Catharina Maracke. European Press Academic Publishing, pp.412, 2010, Series in Legal Information and Communication Technologies. halshs-00671623 HAL Id: halshs-00671623 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00671623 Submitted on 17 Feb 2012 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Series in Legal Information and Communication Technologies Volume 8 IntelligentMultimedia.tex; 28/05/2010; 20:00; p.1 Volume Editors’ Biographies Daniele Bourcier, doctorate in Public Law, is director of research at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CERSA, Paris. She is associ- ated professor at the University of Paris 1 in eGovernment. Scientific lead of CC France, she works on Commons Governance and Regulation. She wrote 16 books (collective or not) and many papers in the field of IT, Cognition and Law. She is an appointed member of the Comite d’Éthique des Sciences (CNRS). Pompeu Casanovas, director of the UAB Institute of Law and Technol- ogy (http://idt.uab.cat) and professor of Philosophy of Law at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Software Copyright Infringement and Criminal Enforcement
    Online Software Copyright Infringement and Criminal Enforcement Submitted: May 14, 2005 Randy K. Baldwin American University Washington College of Law What are Warez and Who Trades Them? This paper will discuss infringement of software copyrights with a focus on criminal ‘warez trading‘ of copyrighted software on the Internet. Warez are infringing electronic, digital copies of copyrighted works whose copy protection measures have been removed.1 Warez are most often ‘cracked’ software programs whose digital rights management (DRM) and copy control measures have been circumvented. Once DRM controls have been disabled, warez are subsequently distributed and traded on the Internet, usually without any direct financial gain to the distributors and traders.2 Distribution of warez usually starts as small-scale deployments from password- protected file transfer protocol (FTP) servers and encrypted and/or password-protected web sites run by warez groups. Warez are then traded on the Internet among broader groups via direct peer-to-peer (P2P) connections, and encrypted emails with warez attachments. Trading and downloading of warez is coordinated via closed, invite-only Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels, Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) encrypted email, Instant Messaging (IM), private chat rooms, direct connect P2P networks, and messages posted to Usenet groups under pseudonyms.3 Servers and sites hosting warez and communications means used by warez traders are designed to avoid detection and identification by law enforcement.4 File and directory names are intentionally 1 Goldman, Eric, A Road to No Warez: The No Electronic Theft Act and Criminal Copyright Infringement. 82 Or. L. Rev. 369, 370-371 (2003). [hereinafter Road to No Warez], available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=520122 (last visited May 9, 2005) (on file with author) (Defines warez and warez trading.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyleft, -Right and the Case Law on Apis on Both Sides of the Atlantic 5
    Less may be more: copyleft, -right and the case law on APIs on both sides of the Atlantic 5 Less may be more: copyleft, -right and the case law on APIs on both sides of the Atlantic Walter H. van Holst Senior IT-legal consultant at Mitopics, The Netherlands (with thanks to the whole of the FTF-legal mailinglist for contributing information and cases that were essential for this article) DOI: 10.5033/ifosslr.v5i1.72 Abstract Like any relatively young area of law, copyright on software is surrounded by some legal uncertainty. Even more so in the context of copyleft open source licenses, since these licenses in some respects aim for goals that are the opposite of 'regular' software copyright law. This article provides an analysis of the reciprocal effect of the GPL- family of copyleft software licenses (the GPL, LGPL and the AGPL) from a mostly copyright perspective as well as an analysis of the extent to which the SAS/WPL case affects this family of copyleft software licenses. In this article the extent to which the GPL and AGPL reciprocity clauses have a wider effect than those of the LGPL is questioned, while both the SAS/WPL jurisprudence and the Oracle vs Google case seem to affirm the LGPL's “dynamic linking” criterium. The net result is that the GPL may not be able to be more copyleft than the LGPL. Keywords Law; information technology; Free and Open Source Software; case law; copyleft, copyright; reciprocity effect; exhaustion; derivation; compilation International Free and Open Source Software Law Review Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Bright Ideas a Publication of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the New York State Bar Association
    NYSBA SPRING/SUMMER 2011 | VOL. 20 | NO. 1 Bright Ideas A publication of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the New York State Bar Association Message from the Chair I am pleased to report on but has never quite been able to fi nd the right place. I am a number of exciting develop- excited to report that we will be trying something differ- ments and activities of our ent this year: the Section’s 2011 Fall Meeting will be held Section. First, we had another at the Rittenhouse Hotel in Philadelphia from October great Annual Meeting in January. 20-23. We hope that moving the Meeting to an urban Kudos to our Annual Meeting venue will mix things up a bit and help keep the program Co-Chairs, Chuck Miller and Phil fresh. There are many fun things for our families (and Furgang, for putting together ourselves) to do in Philadelphia, and the city is easy to a fascinating program, which get to by train or by car from most points within New covered diverse and cutting-edge York. We are planning special events to take advantage of intellectual property topics Paul M. Fakler what the city has to offer, hopefully including an event at such as the latest developments the Franklin Institute (a wonderful museum named for in patent litigation, counterfeiting, intellectual property inventor and statesman Benjamin Franklin and dedi- legislation, ethical issues raised by cloud computing, and cated to science and technology). Traditionalists need not intellectual property protection in China. We also had the worry: we plan to return to one of our traditional upstate distinct honor of hosting a thought-provoking luncheon venues for the 2012 Fall Meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Paolo Guarda Faculty of Law – University of Trento 1 Image Courtesy of Jscreationzs at Freedigitalphotos.Net
    University of Trento Crash Course Copyright software protection: proprietary vs. open source licenses May 8, 2018 Paolo Guarda Faculty of Law – University of Trento 1 Image courtesy of jscreationzs at FreeDigitalPhotos.net CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guarda_18 2 Overview of intellectual property Legal right What for? How? Application and Patents New inventions examination Original creative or artistic Copyright Exists automatically forms Distinctive identification of Use and/or Trade marks products or services registration Registered designs External appearance Registration* Valuable information not known Reasonable efforts to Trade secrets to the public keep secret From EPO, Patent teaching kit CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guarda_18 3 Some IP found in a mobile Trade marks: • Made by "Nokia" phone • Product "N95" • Software "Symbian", "Java" Patents: • Data-processing methods • Semiconductor circuits © Nokia • Chemical compounds • … Trade secrets: ? Copyrights: • Software code Designs (some of them registered): • Instruction manual • Form of overall phone • Ringtone • Arrangement of buttons in oval shape • … • Three-dimensional wave form of buttons • … From EPO, Patent teaching kit CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guarda_18 4 IPRs Rationale § The Statute of Anne (1710): “An act for the encouragement of learning, by vesting the copies of printed books in the authors or purchasers of such copies, during the times therein mentioned” § U.S. CONST. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8 “The Congress shall have Power . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guard 5 a_18 Copyright CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guarda_18 6 Psychological pressure CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guarda_18 7 CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guarda_18 8 A recent law § Unlike the property on material things (which dates back to the dawn of time, which means the earliest forms of human legal organization).
    [Show full text]
  • VULCAN HISTORICAL REVIEW Vol
    THE VULCAN HISTORICAL REVIEW Vol. 16 • 2012 The Vulcan Historical Review Volume 16 • 2012 ______________________________ Chi Omicron Chapter Phi Alpha Theta History Honor Society University of Alabama at Birmingham The Vulcan Historical Review Volume 16 • 2012 Published annually by the Chi Omicron Chapter of Phi Alpha Theta at the University of Alabama at Birmingham 2012 Editorial Staff Executive Editors Beth Hunter and Maya Orr Graphic Designer Jacqueline C. Boohaker Editorial Board Chelsea Baldini Charles Brooks Etheredge Brittany Richards Foust Faculty Advisor Dr. George O. Liber Co-Sponsors The Linney Family Endowment for The Vulcan Historical Review Dr. Carol Z. Garrison, President, UAB Dr. Linda Lucas, Provost, UAB Dr. Suzanne Austin, Vice Provost for Student and Faculty Success, UAB Dr. Bryan Noe, Dean of the Graduate School, UAB Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, UAB Dr. Rebecca Ann Bach, Associate Dean for Research and Creative Activities in the Humanities and Arts, UAB Dr. Carolyn A. Conley, Chair, Department of History, UAB The Department of History, UAB The Vulcan Historical Review is published annually by the Chi Omicron Chapter (UAB) of Phi Alpha Theta History Honor Society. The journal is completely student-written and student-edited by undergraduate and masters level graduate students at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. ©2012 Chi Omicron Chapter of Phi Alpha Theta History Honor Society, the University of Alabama at Birmingham. All rights reserved. No material may be duplicated or quoted without the expressed written permission of the author. The University of Alabama at Birmingham, its departments, and its organizations disclaim any responsibility for statements, either in fact or opinion, made by contributors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom to Copy: Copyright, Creation, and Context
    The Freedom to Copy: Copyright, Creation, and Context Olufunmilayo B. Arewa* Although much separates them musically, George Harrison and Michael Bolton share a common legal fate. Both have been held liable in copyright infringement cases in which a court articulated theories of liability based on subconscious infringement. This Article discusses how decisions in the Bolton, Harrison, and other copyright infringement cases reflect a common failing. Such decisions highlight the incomplete nature of the theories of creativity and creation processes in copyright doctrine. After discussing current approaches to questions of creation, this Article suggests ways in which copyright theory can better incorporate a contextualized understanding of creativity and creation processes. Creativity in copyright is frequently characterized as not involving copying, which is typically thought to be antithetical to both originality and creativity. This stigmatization of copying, however, means that copyright theory cannot adequately account for the reality of not infrequent similarities between works that are a result of copying both ideas and expression in the creation of new works. This missing theoretical link has significant implications for copyright in practice. The lack of legal analysis of the full range of creativity and processes of creation is also a major reason why copyright theory often has such difficulty delineating what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate copying of existing works. * Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. A.B. Harvard College; M.A. Anthropology, Ph.D. Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley; A.M. Applied Economics, University of Michigan; J.D., Harvard Law School. For their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts, I am indebted to Margaret Chon, Julie Cohen, Paul Heald, Kevin Jon Heller, Andrew Koppelman, Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, Jacqueline Lipton, Andrew P.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAGEN V3.2 EULA and Readme
    Software Copyright Notice Software: DRAGEN v3.2 © Illumina, Inc. 2018 This Software is licensed for use under an End User Software License Agreement: ILLUMINA END-USER SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY. THIS IS A LICENSE AGREEMENT THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT BEFORE INSTALLING AND USING ILLUMINA, INC. SOFTWARE. CAREFULLY READ ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE DOWNLOADING AND/OR INSTALLATION OF THIS SOFTWARE. YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO DOWNLOAD AND/OR INSTALL THIS SOFTWARE UNTIL YOU HAVE AGREED TO BE BOUND BY ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT. BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, OR OTHERWISE ACCESING OR USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT. YOU ALSO REPRESENT AND WARRANT THAT YOU ARE DULY AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF YOUR EMPLOYER. This End User License Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between Illumina, Inc., a Delaware corporation, having offices at 5200 Illumina Way, San Diego, CA 92122 (“Illumina”) and you as the end-user of the Software (hereinafter, “Licensee” or “you”). All computer programs identified above, software, firmware, and associated media, printed materials and online and electronic documentation, including any updates or upgrades thereof (collectively, “Software”) provided to Licensee are for use solely by Licensee and the provisions herein shall apply with respect to such Software. By using the Software, you indicate your acceptance of these terms and conditions, at which point this Agreement will become a legally binding agreement between you and Illumina.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conceptual Framework for Copyright Philosophy and Ethics Jon M
    Cornell Law Review Volume 88 Article 2 Issue 5 July 2003 Normative Copyright: A Conceptual Framework for Copyright Philosophy and Ethics Jon M. Garon Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jon M. Garon, Normative Copyright: A Conceptual Framework for Copyright Philosophy and Ethics, 88 Cornell L. Rev. 1278 (2003) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol88/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORMATIVE COPYRIGHT: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COPYRIGHT PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS Jon M. Garont This Article explores the theoretical underpinnings of copyright to deter- mine which theories provide an appropriate basis for copyright. The Article first critiques the leading conceptual underpinnings, including naturallaw, copyright's intangible nature, economic balancing and copyright's role in creatingincentives for new authorship. The Article then addresses each of the three core elements in normative justice-the social contract, the legal rules, and the mechanisms of enforcement-to develop a schema for reestablishing a normatively valid copyright policy. The research presented demonstrates that the intangible nature of copy- right does not govern the public's attitude toward copyright. Instead, norms associated with plagiarism illustrate society's ability to accept intangible property rules, while comparison with shoplifting indicates a strong corollary to piracy involving physical goods.
    [Show full text]
  • An Unhurried Critique of Copyright and the Potential for Alternatives
    University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection 1954-2016 University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2007 DON'T PANIC!: an unhurried critique of copyright and the potential for alternatives. Christopher L. Moore Dr University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses University of Wollongong Copyright Warning You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or study. The University does not authorise you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are reminded of the following: This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised, without the permission of the author. Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. A court may impose penalties and award damages in relation to offences and infringements relating to copyright material. Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for offences and infringements involving the conversion of material into digital or electronic form. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of Wollongong. Recommended Citation Moore, Christopher L., DON'T PANIC!: an unhurried critique of copyright and the potential for alternatives, PhD thesis, School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication, University of Wollongong, 2007.
    [Show full text]