yet, since the form of expression is necessarily different – indeed, if it is
turned into a language such as Chinese the translation will consist of
ideograms – the only connecting factor must be the detailed ideas and
information.
2.76 Further, on consideration it will be perceived that any literary or
dramatic work contains a combination of detailed ideas, thoughts or
information expressed in a particular language or notation; and once it
is conceded that the protection is not confined to the actual language or
notation used, it must follow that what remains, and is protected,
consists of the collection of ideas, thoughts or information.”
If the argument presented in this passage is accepted, it would follow that the
ideas which are excluded by section 2 of the Copyright Act 2005 from being
copyrighted must be those of a general character, as distinct from the detailed
pattern of ideas and thoughts embodied, for instance, in a novel. Thus, if a
novel were couched in different vocabulary, reproducing all its ideas,
thoughts, plots and action, but without replicating any of its original language
or style, I do not consider that this would come within the ambit of the
exclusion in section 2, although there would have been a copying of only its
ideas and not its expression. In other words, the copying of the detailed
substance of a literary work, without its particular linguistic or other form of
expression, can constitute an infringement of copyright. In my view, what is
intended to be included in section 2 are general ideas, concepts, procedures,
and methods only, and not a detailed pattern of ideas. This is because of the
reason earlier stated, namely that that detailed pattern can be regarded as
constituting expression.
The distinction between a general idea and a
detailed sequence of ideas is therefore highly significant in this context.
16