Code as speech: A discussion of Bernstein V. USDOJ, karn V. USDOS, and junger V. Daley in light of the U.s. Supreme court's recent shift to federalism
Ethics and Information Technology 3 (1):21-33 (2001)
| Abstract | The purpose of this paper is to address the question of whethercomputer source code is speech protected by the First Amendmentto the United States Constitution or whether it is merelyfunctional, a ``machine'', designed to fulfill a set task andtherefore bereft of protection. The answer to this question is acomplex one. Unlike all other forms of ``speech'' computer sourcecode holds a unique place in the law: it can be copyrighted, likea book and it can be patented like a machine or process.Case law, intellectual property law and encryption exportregulations all reflect this contradictory dichotomy. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesPurushottama Bilimoria (1995). Legal Rulings on Suicide in India and Implications for the Right to Die. Asian Philosophy 5 (2):159 – 180.
Melinda Vadas (1992). The Pornography / Civil Rights Ordinance V. The BOG: And the Winner Is...? Hypatia 7 (3):94 - 109.
Vaughana Macy Feary (1992). Taking the Right of Freedom of Commerical Communication Seriously. Journal of Business Ethics 11 (1):47 - 59.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads1 ( #274,830 of 549,088 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
