| >The idea of copyright is to prohibit unauthorized use and reproduction, but none of this actually happens with a proprietary software SaaS backend. You don't actually give anybody the code - they connect to the service. The point isn't that you have to give it to people, but okay? >Access to the service is already governed by computer access laws, which don't depend on copyright Yeah, copyright doesn't control everything, and? >There are other things that aren't copyrightable that are trade secrets already. This would be true of any kind of automated data collection for example. You couldn't copyright it but you can call it a trade secret. Okay? >And for any of that stuff, if you want to share it and limit distribution, you just have whoever wants access explicitly agree to be bound by contract law. Your point being? You're just rambling assumptions about copyright and other things, which don't even track the actual law. |
I'm replying to the post that claimed:
> If that’s how the court interpreted it, then the software industry is hosed, since that’d mean none of the generated code running in production right now is under any sort of copyright or otherwise protection, lol.
There is in fact "otherwise protection" for the software industry by... not distributing the code. They don't need copyright over the generated code if they vibe code a SaaS backend. Whether there's copyright or not is irrelevant for the business model.