SSRN Home Search and Download Papers Browse Abstract and Paper Submission Subscribe to Networks View Briefcase Top Papers Top Authors Top Institutions

 

Abstract

 
 

Citations (1)

Beta

 
 

Footnotes (92)

Beta

 


 



Method and Madness in Copyright Law

Dan L. Burk
University of California, Irvine Law School



Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-34

Abstract:     
Black letter copyright law holds that methods and processes, as well as facts and ideas, are excluded from the subject matter of copyright. This doctrine extends back at least to the iconic Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Selden. But recent copyright cases have protected as copyrightable subject matter compilations of numerical values that are the products of calculation processes, such that protection of the final results seems tantamount to protection of the underlying process. These cases not only tread the line between fact and original expression, but underscore the difficulty of separating process from product in copyright. A careful examination of these decisions uncovers powerful but questionable philosophical assumptions embedded in copyright jurisprudence, and reveals hidden lacunae within the copyright statute that call into question the continuity and viability of current copyright doctrine.

Keywords: copyright, determinism, fact, expression, intellectual property, software, processes

JEL Classifications: O31, O33, O34, L86, K30, K40

Working Paper Series

Date posted: July 12, 2007 ; Last revised: June 05, 2008

Suggested Citation

Burk, Dan L., Method and Madness in Copyright Law. Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-34. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=999433


Export to: Export Citation What's this?

Contact Information

Dan L. Burk (Contact Author)
University of California, Irvine Law School ( email )
4500 Berkeley Place
Irvine, CA 92697-1000
United States
949-824-9325 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,034
Downloads: 217
Download Rank: 41,265
Citations: 1
Footnotes: 92
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2010 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright
This page was served by apollo1 in 0.171 seconds.