Ars Technica – Law and Disorder The Art Law Blog
The mechanistic approach that the law takes toward the creation, production, and incentivization of intellectual property has more in common, in many ways, with the rules that govern a machine’s operation - “real” human thought and behavior is a lot more erratic.
“In the case of computer programs, this expression/idea distinction poses unique problems, because computer programs are essentially utilitarian articles which accomplish tasks, and they therefore contain many logical, structural, and visual display elements that are dictated by considerations of function and efficiency, as well as by external factors such as compatibility requirements and industry demands.”
The crucial question appears to be whether the “work” is basically one of human authorship, with the computer merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work.
This is a sticky, complicated issue. But what can you expect from a legal system that can't even figure out how to categorize software art?
To be human is to be 'a' human, a specific person with a life history and idiosyncrasy and point of view; artificial intelligence suggest that the line between intelligent machines and people blurs most when a puree is made of that identity.
In 1986, computers were officially determined by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (“OTA”) to be more than “inert tools of creation.”
Magazine Basic theme designed by Themes by bavotasan.com.
Powered by WordPress.
