Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Well, I'm not reciting, dancing, or acting postfix. I'm not rendering >> it or playing it either, as far as I can tell. I don't even *see* its >> code, which seems quite different from music I'm playing or a dramatic >> work I'm rendering. > > "playing" is a rather generic word (example sentences from dictionary.com > include "The fountains played in the courtyard" and "played the matter > quietly"). I don't see that you're not playing it. > > Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not > copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're > presenting now]. > >> playing a CD or a player piano, I still don't see the output at all. >> I do not perceive the work in any way. > > I'll agree that you're not seeing the raw bits, but nobody ever sees > the raw bits. Instead, you see things resulting from those bits.
You just defeated yourself. Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to include output produced when running the program. Why would this be different when the program sends its output over a network? -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]