[!CrackMonkey!] does compiled code equal free speech?

[Evan Prodromou]

>>>>> "SDS" == Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org> writes:

    SDS> I heard something about a case in which something was found
    SDS> copyrightable but obscene.  

See, but, I think that that's the exception that proves the rule. One
wouldn't even treat the subject under obscenity law and/or the First
Amendment if the subject (are you talking about a computer program, by
the way?)  was not expression.

I guess the way I'm thinking about it -- unfortunately -- is that C
and A1 are both functions over the same domain, E, comprised of
expressive works. C maps E to ownership rights, and A1 maps E to
freedom. Just because the function returns boolean false on occasion
does not mean that the imput was not in the domain.

    SDS> I can't remember any details, though.  There are also easy
    SDS> examples in the other direction, like Feist (a
    SDS> non-copyrightable original work which nobody maintained was
    SDS> not protected by the first amendment).

So, public domain written works are not copyrighted, but they are
expression w/r/t the A1. However, even treating them as "public domain
works" -- labelling them as such -- means giving them some status
under copyright framework.

I'm suspecting that that's not what you mean, though. I don't know the
case you're talking about, and I'm too lazy to go look it up. What was
the medium that could not be copyrighted but had A1 protection?

    SDS> Brief of Abelson et al. as Amici Curiae.

    SDS> http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2001/0126-speech.html

Eluctate on! Seth, I think you are probably one of the most
interesting people to hear from on Crackmonkey.

~ESP

-- 
Evan Prodromou
evan at prodromou.san-francisco.ca.us