Are my assumptions about clean-room reverse engineering and copyright of computer programs correct? Recently, the people behind the re3 project (public decompilation of the games GTA III and GTA Vice City) were served a civol lawsuit by Take Two, the owning company of the games. What the group did was run the binaries through decompilers, such as IDA, and making a recreation of equivalent high-level C++ source code. From my underdstanding of law and jurisprudence, this would not breach copyright law. My reasoning is the following: Computer programs are only covered by copyright because their source code is, therefore so is the resulting object code. However, the processes and sequences of operations that make the program do what it does aren't copyrightable (a patent would be better suited for those things). Taking that into account, by decompiling the object code into new, re-arranged source code, the only elements that would remain are the specific sequences and processes that are represented by it. No copyrighted works remain, neither the object code nor the original source code the engineers wrote and later compiled. I have what I believe to be a good analogy to explain it better. Suppose there is a recording (object code/binary) of an orchestral performance (original source code) of a song that is in the public domain (processes/sequences of operations) Wouldn't the decompilation project be the equivalent of me running the recording through a program which would recognize the individual notes and throw together a music sheet? The recording and performance are copyrighted, but the core concept in which they are based on is not (in this case because the song is on the public domain, however keep in mind I only used this to have an example of an &quot;non-copyrighted&quot; thing. processes/sequences of operations can never enjoy copyright protections at all) While of course noting that we cannot predict the future: could this argument hold up? If not, what are its flaws?
I think that both your examples would be considered, if not outright copies, then at the very least derivative works of the originals. Under US law, the copyright holder of a work has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works. So anyone who prepares such a work without the authorization of the copyright holder is infringing their copyright and will be liable for such infringment. The US Copyright Office, in their Circular 14, explicitly includes &quot;a new version of an existing computer program&quot; as an example of a derivative work. That would certainly seem to cover the GTA folks. The concept that derivative works generally include &quot;translations&quot; might capture them, too. Your example of transcribing a musical performance isn't explicitly mentioned, but I think your sheet music would likewise be a derivative work of the performance: it includes all the editorial and arrangement choices made by the orchestra. Of course, both the performance and your transcription are derivative works of the original composition, but since the composition is out of copyright, there's no legal problem with that aspect.
Copyright law treats computer files containing text as &quot;copies&quot; and computer files containing sound as &quot;phonorecords&quot;. Indeed it must, otherwise there would be no copyright protection for ebooks and for downloadable music. Thus, I would take 17 U.S. Code §121 to apply. The word &quot;material&quot; in copyright law has been held to include &quot;stored in electronic form on any storage device&quot; so that the key requirement for an initial copyright, that the work be &quot;fixed in a tangible form&quot; or &quot;fixed in any tangible medium of expression&quot; is satisfied by a computer file, see 17 USC 102 17 USC 121 reads: it is not an infringement of copyright for an authorized entity to reproduce or to distribute in the United States copies or phonorecords of a previously published literary work ... if such copies or phonorecords are reproduced or distributed in accessible formats exclusively for use by eligible persons. Note that the page &quot;Copyright and Digital Files&quot; describes computer files recorded in a computer or on disk as &quot;copies&quot; as in deed does 17 USC 117 This establishes that such files are copies, and thus consist of &quot;materiel objects&quot;. The official US copyright office page on &quot;Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine?&quot; reads: Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law. (emphasis added) Copyright Office Circular 1: &quot;Copyright Basics&quot; reads: A work is “fixed” when it is captured (either by or under the authority of an author) in a sufficiently permanent medium such that the work can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated for more than a short time. A computer file is petty clearly &quot;sufficiently permanent&quot; for this purpose. Also consider Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc 886 F. 3d 1179 As this web page reports: In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that Google's use of Oracle's software code in developing the Android operating system constituted a fair use under §107 of the Copyright Act. The use would not have been fair use unless the code was protected by copyright, and the code almost surely existed only in the form of computer files. Thus the US Supreme Court has treated computer files as &quot;materiel objects&quot; for purposes of copyright law. (Note also that the use was declared to be infringement unless fair use applied, which leads even more directly to the same conclusion.)
The audio book would probably be an infringing derivative work because the client could redistribute it once the client received it. It sounds very much like a product that is regularly sold by merchants relying on copyrights. Conceivably, simply reading a book aloud to a client in some sort of streaming context that could't be shared with others or replayed would merely be fair use, much like hiring a baby sitter to read a book aloud to your children would be clearly fair use. If there were an automatic text to sound converter as opposed to an individualized performance, it might not be considered infringing. There are people with programs that do this who haven't been sued, but the boundaries haven't been explored very thoroughly. Honestly, there isn't a lot of guidance in this area from statutory language, and the questions would often not be guided by much case law involving similar facts. Your intuition living in the modern world is probably almost as good as a lawyer's in this situation.
Generally, no, this will not violate copyright. Your end user might violate copyright, but that is their problem not yours. Your program is a tool, just like a word processor is. If I copy a Harry Potter book into a word processor that does not make the word processor maker liable. There is a concept of "contributory infringement", which I think is what you are concerned about. I don't know about Danish law in particular, but most countries would require evidence that you had reasonable knowledge that actual copyright violation was occuring, rather than just being aware that it might happen in theory. This is normally applied to file sharing services who have to have "notice and takedown" measures, file filters and the like. This isn't your concern as you never have any access to the files created by your users. You can also be found liable if you induce anyone to commit copyright violations. Don't draw your customers attention to the custom monster feature as a workaround for those copyrighted monsters, as that could be considered to be inducement. Also don't provide any "wizards" or similar tools which make it noticeably easier to duplicate the custom monsters (e.g. if you notice that the copyrighted custom dragon stats are all on a linear scale with dragon size, don't create a "dragon creation wizard" embodying that fact.) This assumes that your program runs entirely on the end user computer. Its different if you provide any kind of cloud storage for generated characters.
If you do, can you build/run it without being bound by said license? No, you cannot. Because there is no way to &quot;build/run&quot; it without making a copy. You copy the sourcecode, before you can run your compiler. That is the copy you are making, not copying the file that results from this process. A valid question might be, are you bound by the license? Well, that is up for lawyers and a court to decide, but in all countries I know, copyright is automatic for anything worth copying. And the copyright holder can grant licenses to people to allow things. So arguing you are not bound by a specific license would mean you would argue that you are bound by the legal default, which in most countries is &quot;You cannot copy that. At all. Unless you have explicit permission&quot;. That argument would sound like &quot;I stole all 10, because the offer of buy-one-get-one-free was not legally binding&quot;. Maybe it wasn't. But that doesn't mean you get to do something unrelated illegal instead. Now, there are many exceptions for &quot;personal use&quot;. You can sing any song in the shower. I would assume you can compile any program there, too. You just cannot use that program for anything worthwhile, the same way you cannot record your song in the shower and sell it.
No, the musical composition itself (i.e., what you might express tangibly in sheet music) has copyright distinct from the copyright that exists on Led Zepplin's recording of the song. Your new cover will still be a derivative work of the musical composition. When you record a cover of a copyrighted song, you must get permission from the composer (or current copyright holder of the composition). In the United States, however, you can compel the copyright holder to grant you license under 17 USC §115. Under a compulsory license, you pay a fixed fee per copy of the cover that you distribute (currently 9.1 cents), and the copyright holder must allow you to distribute those copies. See the circular Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Phonorecords from the U.S. Copyright Office. I am not aware of other countries that have a similar compulsory license scheme, so in those jurisdictions, you would need to negotiate a license with the publisher or an intermediary agency they use. However, even if you did get a compulsory license to distribute your cover song, you must get permission to synchronize the song with a video. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers describes the copyright holder's exclusive synchronization right: A synchronization or "synch" right involves the use of a recording of musical work in audio-visual form: for example as part of a motion picture, television program, commercial announcement, music video or other videotape. Often, the music is "synchronized" or recorded in timed relation with the visual images. Since the synchronization right cannot be acquired under a compulsory license, you will need to have the publisher (or whoever the copyright holder is) agree to license the synchronization right to you under whatever terms the two of you can agree upon.
No These are derivative works and making them is copyright breach. Doing this as a hobby or even for the entertainment of friends in private is likely fair use. Distribution or performance in public (monitored or not) is likely not fair use and you would need a licence. Here is a summary of the relevant law in australia.
There are two processes that go on all the time, and are generally considered legal: Encryption algorithms are attacked by cryptographers and weaknesses identified. In most cases this results in a gradual reduction of the work required to break the algorithm by a few orders of magnitude at a time. The history of SHA-1 is a good example of this. People identify security holes in software and follow responsible disclosure rules. This means that they notify the vendor and give them an opportunity to fix the bug before going public. Note that this is merely considered good practice; immediate publication would be legal too. Your scenario sits at the intersection of these two processes: an attack (process 1) which completely destroys the security of many systems (process 2). Responsible disclosure occupies a legal grey area: someone who finds a bug might have had to exploit it to at least some degree to demonstrate it, and there have been cases where vendors have used police or courts to retaliate. However this wouldn't apply to your scenario. In America the First Amendment makes it unconstitutional to use the legal system to stop people saying true things (copyright excepted, and untrue things are often legal too). If your Wunderkind lives in America then a widely published factual description of their solution would therefore be legal. Legal problems only start if they provide the details in secret to people they should reasonably suspect of intending to use them for crime.