No, again, it is not. Microsoft and Apple had this fight a zillion years ago, and it was ruled that neither lawsuit nor counter-suit had any claim at all. (ref: Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., supra, 799 F. Supp. 1006 (N.D. Cal. 1992) in which, and I quote: "purely functional elements were not protectable." ...and that's just for the wee copyright aspect that it may have. Let's trip over to patent law, shall we? After all, a .pz3 file isn't a statement or expression, it is a process, and processes are patentable, whereas copyrights are not. Curious Labs would, first and foremost, have to patent these formats... as a side issue, they have not. Also, elements necessary for compatibility wiith other programs are judged not to be protectable, as per studies referenced here: http://www.unt.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/band.htm The specific argument, to wit: "Later cases weakened this position, however, preparing the way for the decision which currently governs this area, Computer Associates v. Altai. Computer Associates rejected "thick" protection of software, and set a standard procedure for identifying which elements of a computer program are protectable. In particular, elements necessary for compatibility with other programs and with computer hardware were judged not to be protectable, giving a boost to the interoperable developers' position. Band and Katoh describe this case in detail, reviewing briefs by the parties and amici as well as the decision. They then discuss subsequent cases, both in the U.S. and Canada, which used the procedure established in Computer Associates, including the background of Lotus v. Borland, which was pending as this book went to press." Most legal type folks I've spoken with tend to agree that importing external files formats that aren't encrypted cannot be held as theft. OTOH, there was enough caution and disagreement over exporting formats (which would be in violation due to the fact that you would have to duplicate the patented process to create the file.) I guess I should preface all of this with the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer, so there you go... IANAL. OTOH, I have yet to see any evidence that a flat ASCII file, which is a process, would be considered copyrightable, when Curious Labs themselves have said that it is not copyrightable. /P