Editing Software copyright (section)

==== History ====
Historically, [[Computer programs and the Patent Cooperation Treaty|computer programs]] were not effectively protected by copyrights because computer programs were not viewed as a fixed, tangible object: [[object code]] was viewed as a utilitarian good produced from [[source code]] rather than as a creative work. Due to lack of precedent, this outcome was reached while deciding how to handle copyright of computer programs. The Copyright Office attempted to classify computer programs by drawing an analogy: the blueprints of a bridge and the resulting bridge compared to the source code of a program and the resulting executable object code.<ref name="sail_book">Lemley, Menell, Merges and Samuelson. ''Software and Internet Law'', p. 34</ref> This analogy caused the Copyright Office to issue copyright certificates under its [[Rule of Doubt]].

In 1974, the Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works ([[CONTU]]) was established. CONTU decided that "computer programs, to the extent that they embody an author's original [[Creative work|creation]], are proper subject matter of copyright."<ref name="digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu">[http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=ggulrev Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corporation Puts the Byte Back into Copyright Protection for Computer Programs] in Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 14, Issue 2, Article 3 by Jan L. Nussbaum (January 1984)</ref><ref name="sail_book"/> In 1980, the United States Congress added the definition of "computer program" to {{UnitedStatesCode|17|101}} and amended {{UnitedStatesCode|17|117}} to allow the owner of the program to make another copy or adaptation for use on a computer.<ref name="sail_book2">Lemley, Menell, Merges and Samuelson. ''Software and Internet Law'', p. 35</ref>

This [[legislation]], plus court decisions such as ''[[Apple v. Franklin]]'' in 1983 clarified that the Copyright Act gave computer programs the copyright status of literary works. Many companies began to claim that they "licensed" but did not sell their products, in order to avoid the transfer of rights to the end-user via the [[doctrine of first sale]] (see ''[[Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology]]''). These [[software license agreement]]s are often labeled as end-user license agreements ([[EULA]]s). Another impact of the decision was the rise of the [[Shrink wrap contract|shrink-wrap]] [[closed source]] business model, where before a [[source code]] driven software distribution schema dominated.<ref name="digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu"/><ref name="landley2009">{{cite web|url=http://landley.net/notes-2009.html |first=Rob |last=Landley |publisher=landley.net |access-date=2015-12-02 |date=2009-05-23 |quote=''So if [[Open-source software|open source]] used to be the norm back in the 1960s and 70s, how did this _change_? Where did [[proprietary software]] come from, and when, and how? How did [[Richard Stallman]]'s little utopia at the [[MIT AI lab]] crumble and force him out into the wilderness to try to rebuild it? Two things changed in the early 80s: the exponentially growing installed base of microcomputer hardware reached critical mass around 1980, and a legal decision altered copyright law to cover binaries in 1983.'' |title=notes-2009}}</ref>

In 1998, The United States Congress passed the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] (DMCA) which criminalizes evasion of copy protection ([[Digital Millennium Copyright Act#Anti-circumvention exemptions|with certain exceptions]]), destruction or mismanagement of copyright management information, but includes a clause to exempt ISPs from liability of infringement if one of their subscribers infringes. In addition, the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|DMCA]] extends protection to those who copy a program for maintenance, repair or backup as long as these copies are "destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."{{UnitedStatesCode|17|117}}