Is it Copyrighted or a Trade Secret When Using DRM?

rcpitt writes "In a discussion on the Digital Copyright (Canadian, but relevant world wide) list I subscribe to, we were discussing the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) treaty. In thinking about an article that I subsequently wrote I came up with this thought: If 'publishing' (in the context of when the copyright act takes effect for a work) were taken (by the courts for instance) to be defined only as that done without any rights management or extra contractual ties, then all works not so published would then become trade secrets (or something to that effect), and would lose (or never gain) the protection of the government via the copyright act and have to go after civil damages for individual transgressors. I'm interested in others' thoughts on this concept in light of Digital Rights Management, distribution of binary/source code (software), or music/video (multi-media) with an EULA that is restrictive might be construed as 'not publishing' in the context of whether the (insert your country) Copyright Act can be applied."

Comments

Re:rosy DMCA picture

[rhadamanthus]

I most certainly agree with you. The DMCA is nothing more than a tool bought by big-name copyright folks (RIAA, MPAA, Publishers, et. al.). The DOJ IP folks don't care one way or the other: its job security for lawyers.

As always: the number one problem with US Government is that we have Lawyers Making Laws!

--rhad