Copyrights and Bridge Data
jur...@home.com
Act'. Rather surprising, I think. It explicitly allows interfacing
with programs and interchanging information between programs, even
when this is not intended by the owner, provided you have lawfully
obtained a license to use the program.
What is not allowed is use of the acquired information in a manner
that would constitute infringement, regardless of how it was obtained.
There seem to be various misconceptions regarding what is protected by
the copyright laws. Apparently practically any text, with or without
an explicit copyright statement, is protected.
It sounds to me - and I am very ignorant about such things - that in
the case of the OKB results, the records of the play may be 'data' and
as such unprotected, but that the compilation of this data is probably
protected. So possibly, as far as re-use goes, the rules for
'derivative' works apply, i.e. permission may be necessary.
Further, there are the well known 'fair use' exceptions (criticsm and
comment, news reporting, teaching, research etc.).
Evidently the range of coverage has become broader over the years. For
example, it seems to be sufficiently unclear whether the scores of
Chess games (i.e. the record of the play) can be copyrighted, for FIDE
to have made a recent attempt to claim rights to games played in the
tournaments they organize. I believe they failed, but it shows that
the situation is ambiguous.
It is far more difficult to obtain records of Bridge bidding and play,
or even hand records, than it is to obtain the corresponding
information for Chess games. Even at low levels of competition the
Chess player keeps a written record of the game and the organizer
collects copies. The conditions of contest require that this be done.
As far as popularizing games is concerned it seems extremely
counterproductive to restrict access to play records. If the
tournament organizers had to give explicit permission, authors of
books and of software would soon find it impractical to discuss
competitive play. This would be not only unfortunate but idiotic. If
this is the direction in which the Ebridge/ACBL/EBL/WBF combine is
moving one can only hope that Ebridge will go bankrupt before they do
more serious damage.
Jurgen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new chapter:
`CHAPTER 12--COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES-
(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The
prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at
the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this chapter.
`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to
use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of
that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those
elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability
of an independently created computer program with other programs, and
that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging
in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification
and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a
person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a
technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a
technological measure, in order to enable the identification and
analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling
interoperability of an independently created computer program with
other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such
interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute
infringement under this title.
`(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under
paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be
made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or
(2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for
the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created
computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so
does not constitute infringement under this title or violate
applicable law other than this section.
`(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability'
means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of
such programs mutually to use the information which has been
exchanged.
David desJardins
> Below is an interesting section of the `Digital Millennium Copyright
> Act'. Rather surprising, I think. It explicitly allows interfacing
> with programs and interchanging information between programs, even
> when this is not intended by the owner, provided you have lawfully
> obtained a license to use the program.
But the license agreement can itself take away any or all of those
rights: when you enter into the contract, you agree that even though you
would normally have such rights, you give them up in this case.
There are some who argue that contracts which restrict the rights of a
user more narrowly than copyright law would (e.g., the OKbridge
membership agreement) either are or should be invalid. But there
certainly isn't much case law to support that conclusion.
David desJardins
jur...@home.com
certainly true that the copyright owner cannot restrict 'fair use'; in
this particular section of the law an explicit exception is made to
the general prohibition against defeating protection mechanisms. If
all the owner had to do to invalidate this form of use were to add a
blurb to the license agreement the rule would be still-born.
I am often surprised by the way lawyers think, so I may be misreading
this, but it sounds to me as though the intent is to allow
interfacing, regardless of the owner's attempts to prevent this.
There must be a lawyer in the audience who knows this stuff.
Jurgen
On 21 Apr 2001 14:56:39 -0700, David desJardins
Stephen Pickett
> It sounds to me - and I am very ignorant about such things - that in
> the case of the OKB results, the records of the play may be 'data' and
> as such unprotected, but that the compilation of this data is probably
> protected. So possibly, as far as re-use goes, the rules for
> 'derivative' works apply, i.e. permission may be necessary.
In other words, OKB's original data are unprotected but BRBR's compilation of them *is* protected. That's exactly
the position that I foresaw.
> As far as popularizing games is concerned it seems extremely
> counterproductive to restrict access to play records. If the
> tournament organizers had to give explicit permission, authors of
> books and of software would soon find it impractical to discuss
> competitive play. This would be not only unfortunate but idiotic. If
> this is the direction in which the Ebridge/ACBL/EBL/WBF combine is
> moving one can only hope that Ebridge will go bankrupt before they do
> more serious damage.
Strange, you don't mention OKBridge...........
Isn't there something on OKB's site, or help file, describing how to save a bunch of hands to a file?
--
Stephen Pickett, PO Box 44538, Vancouver BC Canada V5M 4R8
Telephone: (604) 874-7327, Fax: (604) 874-7326, ICQ UIN#212132
Go see BRidgeBRowser at http://www.microtopia.net/bridge/
Stephen Pickett
> >There seem to be various misconceptions regarding what is protected by
> >the copyright laws. Apparently practically any text, with or without
> >an explicit copyright statement, is protected.
>
> This is correct, AFAIK (I am not an expert on copyright, I
> am not a lawyer.) For the interested:
>
> The Copyright Site - http://www.benedict.com
>
> The US Government's Copyright Office -
> http://www.loc.gov/copyright
>
> >It sounds to me - and I am very ignorant about such things - that in
> >the case of the OKB results, the records of the play may be 'data' and
> >as such unprotected, but that the compilation of this data is probably
> >protected. So possibly, as far as re-use goes, the rules for
> >'derivative' works apply, i.e. permission may be necessary.
>
> It sounds that way to me, too.
Is the following considered to be text or data by your definition?
+BDIMP-50 1 944987803 2 0 0 0 0 0
+0033300032201203212123211212001233310112323203131010
jur...@home.com
trying to understand what the rules are. Copyright law is necessary
for obvious reasons; conditions have changed and lines are being
redrawn; this is a natural process.
OKB has not made any attempt to restrict access to play records that
are of more than parochial interest. They post the records of their
tournaments and of various special events. They also make all of the
club play available in a very convenient form. The one thing they
don't do is give access to archived data. I don't know the reason for
this but I suspect that a partial explanation may be that they don't
have the time to deal with fanatical anti-cheating crusaders.
I don't know what the ACBL/ebridge policy is or will be but it looks
ominous.
Jurgen
David desJardins
> You may well be right - I don't know much about this subject. It is
> certainly true that the copyright owner cannot restrict 'fair use'
You are absolutely wrong. A copyright owner can exchange material with
you and place whatever contractual requirements on you for the handling
of that material that the two of you agree to. For example, I can give
you access to detailed information about a confidential product that I
am planning to introduce, under the obligation that you must not
disclose that information, and such agreements can be legally binding,
even though the information itself is not protected under copyright law
at all, and the quoting of limited extracts from the information for the
purpose of review or criticism would certainly be fair use, aside from
the confidentiality agreement.
> If all the owner had to do to invalidate this form of use were to add
> a blurb to the license agreement the rule would be still-born.
Ding ding ding. Now you seem to understand. This is a concern that
many people have, especially now that technological methods of
protection offer the potential to restrict copying that would normally
be "fair use". (It wasn't such a concern when there were no practical
methods of enforcing such contracts, and when contracts of adhesion were
much more limited in their use.) The proposed revisions to the UCC are
also a major threat, to do exactly this.
> There must be a lawyer in the audience who knows this stuff.
I'm not a lawyer, but have taken classes in copyright law taught by
leading experts in the law.
David desJardins
Barry Margolin
Stephen Pickett <sf...@microtopia.net> wrote:
> Is the following considered to be text or data by your definition?
It depends on what it means and how it was created. If a Chinese person
looks at English text, could he tell whether it's creative prose or just
a random collection of letters?
If a human author writes a poem, it's copyrightable. If a monkey typing
randomly produces the same exact text, it's not. Somewhere in between
are examples of poems that have been created by computers, typically
using random selection biased by word frequencies in real poetry; it's
unclear to me whether the copyright belongs to the owner or author of
the program.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Genuity, Burlington, MA
Stephen Pickett
> In article <3AE20E6E...@microtopia.net>,
> Stephen Pickett <sf...@microtopia.net> wrote:
>
> > Is the following considered to be text or data by your definition?
>
> It depends on what it means and how it was created.
It's a board record with the layout of the cards, dealer, vulnerability, at
okbridge.
I presume it was created by a random number generator driven by a program,
though I could not swear to a judge that it is so.
The time stamp (time of dealing) is definitely not random, and is shared by
all the other boards dealt that week. Not much creativity about that.
> If a Chinese person looks at English text, could he tell whether it's
> creative
> prose or just a random collection of letters?
No idea.
> If a human author writes a poem, it's copyrightable. If a monkey typing
> randomly produces the same exact text, it's not. Somewhere in between
> are examples of poems that have been created by computers, typically
> using random selection biased by word frequencies in real poetry; it's
> unclear to me whether the copyright belongs to the owner or author of
> the program.
And a bridge hand, randomly dealt - not by a computer, let's say for the
sake of argument? Is that a copyrightable work in the traditional or
untraditional sense?
jur...@home.com
Does an 'original work' become subject to copyright law upon
publication?
If so, how is publication defined?
Perhaps the OKB data has not been 'published' in any legal sense,
since it is distributed among a limited group .
Evidently the overlap between copyright law and contract law is not
being treated consistently by the courts, so that the enforceability
of restrictions on use is often in uncertain.
Regarding restrictions on 'fair use': Suppose a book is published and
sold under the condition that it may not be reviewed, or may not be
parodied. Is that kind of restriction enforceable? If not, why not? Is
there any kind of test of enforceabilty?
Jurgen
On 21 Apr 2001 17:55:42 -0700, David desJardins
Gord Murray
"David desJardins" <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:vohvgnx...@math.berkeley.edu...
Is not the erudite Mr.desJardins' going "Ding Ding Ding" not this
millenium's leading Bathos?
David desJardins
> Does an 'original work' become subject to copyright law upon
> publication?
No, the same copyright protections apply whether a work is published or
unpublished.
> Evidently the overlap between copyright law and contract law is not
> being treated consistently by the courts, so that the enforceability
> of restrictions on use is often in uncertain.
This is certainly true, especially when it comes to "contracts of
adhesion".
> Regarding restrictions on 'fair use': Suppose a book is published and
> sold under the condition that it may not be reviewed, or may not be
> parodied. Is that kind of restriction enforceable? If not, why not? Is
> there any kind of test of enforceabilty?
If a person doesn't expressly enter into an agreement, but implicitly
agrees to its terms (for example, by making a purchase), that is called
a "contract of adhesion". Such contracts are sometimes but not always
enforceable. Courts have historically used a subjective analysis, for
example ruling such contracts valid if they are 'reasonable' and not
'unconscionable'.
Proposed revisions to the Uniform Commercial Code, if adopted in your
state, will make such contracts significantly more enforceable. These
revisions are opposed by consumer groups, but are still (in my opinion)
likely to be widely adopted, simply because they don't have a high
profile, and powerful business interests favor them.
Note that, even if enforceable, such contracts might not be very
effective. For example, I could borrow the book from a friend and copy
down information that I need for my review. Since I didn't buy the book
from you, I don't have any contractual obligation to you. I suppose you
could try to enforce a chain of obligations, by obligating the person
whom you sell the book to to impose similar restrictions on anyone whom
he allows to read it. But suppose he drops it on the street and someone
else finds it? It's difficult, both practically and theoretically, for
you to ensure that such restrictions will bind anyone who might gain
access to it.
Of course, this becomes less and less true as technological methods of
protection become more powerful. If you also encrypt the data so that
only the person whom you sell it to can decrypt it, then you might have
a better chance of preventing any person who doesn't have the
contractual obligation from gaining access. (But it might still be
hard.)
David desJardins
Christopher J. Monsour
> Proposed revisions to the Uniform Commercial Code, if adopted in your
> state, will make such contracts significantly more enforceable. These
> revisions are opposed by consumer groups, but are still (in my opinion)
> likely to be widely adopted, simply because they don't have a high
> profile, and powerful business interests favor them.
Interesting. Would the proposed revisions also change the usual standards
of interpretation of a contract of adhesion? (I believe that currently,
according to usual principles of interpretation, any amibiguities are to be
resolved in favor of the party that did not draft the contract.)
It seems to me that consumer groups would better serve consumers by fighting
harder on issues like this rather than fighting for increased regulation in
specific arenas.
Christopher J. Monsour
jur...@home.com
Looking for information on copyrighting chess moves, it seems that
there is no identifiable principle that makes a sequence of symbols
representing chess moves 'data', i.e. the representation of mere
facts, while a sequence of musical notes may be an 'authored work'.
The issue was raised already by Steinitz and Lasker and there have
been different laws in different places.
What FIDE is doing currently is very radical, and if 'successful', who
knows whether the ACBL might not attempt similar nonsense?
FIDE has set up a corporation called FIDE Commerce International Ltd,
which in turn has contracted Octagon Sponsorship Consulting Ltd, a
sports promoter, in order to make a business out of the organization
of chess tournaments. They plan effectively to hire chess players, who
are then obliged to play in a certain number of tournaments, similar
to the way Tennis is organized. The contracts would assign rights to
the game scores to the organizer. The latter would then collect
royalties from anyone publishing these games, a fraction of which
would be returned to the players. The players are not of one mind,
some national organizations are protesting etc etc
Jurgen
On 21 Apr 2001 23:18:45 -0700, David desJardins
Matthew L. Ginsberg
Pat Meadows <p...@meadows.pair.com> wrote:
>I gave no definition of text *or* of data, but did give the
>URLs to two sites, one being the US Government's Copyright
>Office and the other being that of a copyright attorney.
My understanding is that the sequence of plays is data (and not
protected by copyright); annotations are derivative and are
copyrightable. I've been led to believe that the ACBL counsel
investigated this question and came to the same conclusion, but that's
obviously something for them to say (or not).
The basic idea is that you can copyright works of art. If the play
records are copyrightable (which seems unlikely), copyright would
initially rest with the players; the sponsoring organization would
have to get them to transfer those rights when they started playing.
This would arguably be easier for OKB than for the ACBL.
There is not much related case law in the US, as far as I know.
Probably closest is MCI's fight with the NBA (I think) about whether
it was ok to broadcast final scores of NBA games over cell phones.
I'm not sure if that's been settled.
Matt Ginsberg
Chris Philp
<sf...@microtopia.net> wrote:
>Barry Margolin wrote:
>
>> In article <3AE20E6E...@microtopia.net>,
>> Stephen Pickett <sf...@microtopia.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Is the following considered to be text or data by your definition?
>>
>> It depends on what it means and how it was created.
>
>It's a board record with the layout of the cards, dealer, vulnerability, at
>okbridge.
>
>I presume it was created by a random number generator driven by a program,
>though I could not swear to a judge that it is so.
>
>The time stamp (time of dealing) is definitely not random, and is shared by
>all the other boards dealt that week. Not much creativity about that.
>
I think there is a lot of confusion in this discussion between
copyright and intellectual property rights (IPR). Most software
vendors don't understand IPR properly and run around slapping their
name all over things they have no right to and often failing to
protect that which they do actually own. Putting that aside for the
moment...
I believe there are two main issues:
1) When a bridge program deals a hand, it cannot create anything new.
It's output is simply one of the possible variations on the number of
ways of splitting the 52 cards into 4 sets of 13. All the possible
variations were known the moment the game was invented. Even if it
were possible to claim that the same is true of arrangements of
letters and words it is only copyrightable if you can show that you
were the first to use a particular sequence, which can be true for
words but not for bridge hands.
2) The issue of IPR/copyright really starts to arise when something
unique is added, like the actions of people on that hand. You start to
ask questions at that point as to whether or not a hand of bridge,
when taken with how it was played by certain people could have some
IPR aspects. If you decided that IPR existed, you would then need to
address the issue of who owned that IPR - the organisers of the
tournament or the participants.
What is clear, however, is that when a hand record becomes an article,
say in a magazine or bulletin, then that material is copyrightable. So
to show that they owned the copyright of a hand record a bridge
program would need to show that they had in some way embellished the
basic hand data to the point where it had become "a story about the
hand". Even then all they would own would be exactly what they had
written, not the hand itself. After all, if I write a story about a
hand played in an event, there is nothing to stop others from writing
a different article about the same hand. They can even say the same
things as long as they don't use the same words. This happens all the
time, as we all know, therefore it seems clear that a hand of bridge
and the actions taken by people in any tournament are in the public
domain ergo members of the public are free to use, interpret and
disseminate that information and comment upon it in any way they see
fit.
>> If a Chinese person looks at English text, could he tell whether it's
>> creative
>> prose or just a random collection of letters?
>
>No idea.
>
But a judge could, and that's all that matters.
>> If a human author writes a poem, it's copyrightable. If a monkey typing
>> randomly produces the same exact text, it's not. Somewhere in between
>> are examples of poems that have been created by computers, typically
>> using random selection biased by word frequencies in real poetry; it's
>> unclear to me whether the copyright belongs to the owner or author of
>> the program.
>
The owner. Otherwise the law would be unenforceable. If I buy poem
generating software and it creates something I like, what is to stop
me from claiming that I wrote it despite the fact that I own the
software? How can anyone but me ever know?
The issue could be different with bridge software for online play
where you are paying for the service and given the software at no
cost.
>And a bridge hand, randomly dealt - not by a computer, let's say for the
>sake of argument? Is that a copyrightable work in the traditional or
>untraditional sense?
No. For the reasons given above.
These are probably the conclusions that you wanted to hear, so I
suspect that I find myself in the unique position of being in
agreement with you.
But then again, AFAIK no bridge program has attempted to claim that
they own any IPR or copyright, have they?
Chris Philp
Chris Ryall
Dubious. If someone sets the monkey to the typewriter with the
intention of creating this 'prose' it might be copyright. Another
example is modern art created by random processes. That is certainly
copyright. I'm not of course suggesting the monkeys own the rights.
--
Chris Ryall Birkenhead UK
Chris Philp
<sf...@microtopia.net> wrote:
>jur...@home.com wrote:
>
>> It sounds to me - and I am very ignorant about such things - that in
>> the case of the OKB results, the records of the play may be 'data' and
>> as such unprotected, but that the compilation of this data is probably
>> protected. So possibly, as far as re-use goes, the rules for
>> 'derivative' works apply, i.e. permission may be necessary.
>
>In other words, OKB's original data are unprotected but BRBR's compilation of them *is* protected. That's exactly
>the position that I foresaw.
>
I don't see that any compilation of hands is protected. Your software
is protected but if it uses data which was in the public domain then
any subset of that data is not so much a "work" as an accident.
However, the conclusions may be copyrightable but by the owner of the
software, who has done the work in any given field of activity, not
the author. The author has rights on the software, the owner has
rights on what he uses it to produce.
To make a compilation of hand records copyrightable you would have to
make it become "a story about the hand" rather than simply recording
what happened. In this sense the judge would expect to see some
intelligent commentary - simply automating your software to put "Once
upon a time..." in front of a hand record would get you the copyright
to exactly that and nothing more.
Chris Philp
David desJardins
> It seems to me that consumer groups would better serve consumers by
> fighting harder on issues like this rather than fighting for increased
> regulation in specific arenas.
It's hopeless. You might as well fight against the sunrise.
UCITA says that terms of a contract "may be unenforceable if they
violate a fundamental public policy that clearly overrides the policy
favoring enforcement of private transactions as between the parties."
There then follow many paragraphs of vague generalities about factors to
be weighed pro or con in deciding whether or not particular terms should
be enforceable. Who's going to dig through this stuff? And, after it's
cooked up behind closed doors, what's the chance of getting individual
state legislators to seriously consider the merit of the individual
sections of the law?
David desJardins
Barry Margolin
Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Dubious. If someone sets the monkey to the typewriter with the
> intention of creating this 'prose' it might be copyright. Another
> example is modern art created by random processes. That is certainly
> copyright. I'm not of course suggesting the monkeys own the rights.
IANAL, but I really doubt that the monkey example would be considered
copyrightable. How can you have the "intention" of creating a
particular poem when you have no idea what the monkey is going to do?
And regarding the computer art, it's not really random. Programs that
are used to create art automatically all have algorithms intended to
generate something matching certain parameters, to make it seem
artistic, pleasing, or what have you. This is generally at least as
creative as some of the op art of the 70's (remember artists just
throwing buckets of paint at the canvas?).
Barry Margolin
Chris Philp <chris...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> I don't see that any compilation of hands is protected. Your software
> is protected but if it uses data which was in the public domain then
> any subset of that data is not so much a "work" as an accident.
Unless it's simply the record of a particular event, the choice of which
hands to include in the compilation may be a creative process, rendering
the compilation copyrightable. For instance, when you read an article
about an event like the Spingold, the author makes deliberate choices
about which hands to discuss. IANAL, but if you were then to publish an
article that gave the record of those same hands, I suspect that would
be considered a derivative work.
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
I doubt it: 2 authors can independently look at the hand records, apply
different criteria and still come up with the same subset of hands.
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.ui...@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand,
then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous)
Chris Ryall
his penis (Matisse?) but that's another matter. I don't see a
vast difference between rolling in paint (which was in mind)
and the monkeys. The artist might choose paint colours. The
prose creator migh chose typewriter ribbons, keyboard layout
fruit supplies and his favourite monkey. All artistic licence ..
Barry Margolin
<Pine.BSI.4.05L.101042...@kantoor.ripe.net>,
"Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <he...@ripe.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> > In article <mg26etk35r9jtv7la...@4ax.com>,
> > Chris Philp <chris...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see that any compilation of hands is protected. Your software
> > > is protected but if it uses data which was in the public domain then
> > > any subset of that data is not so much a "work" as an accident.
> >
> > Unless it's simply the record of a particular event, the choice of which
> > hands to include in the compilation may be a creative process, rendering
> > the compilation copyrightable. For instance, when you read an article
> > about an event like the Spingold, the author makes deliberate choices
> > about which hands to discuss. IANAL, but if you were then to publish an
> > article that gave the record of those same hands, I suspect that would
> > be considered a derivative work.
>
> I doubt it: 2 authors can independently look at the hand records, apply
> different criteria and still come up with the same subset of hands.
True. In copyright, independent creation is always a valid defense.
But I believe courts will try to assess the likelihood of this happening
in any particular instance. Good luck trying to claim that you wrote an
exact copy of "Mark Twain" all by yourself.
Barry Margolin
Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:
If he wants to copyright the color, then he could claim that his choice
of ribbons was significant. But if the monkey tapping is essentially a
random process, then there's no creativity in the resulting *prose*,
i.e. the words that are on the paper. Unless he knows that a monkey
eating bananas is more likely to write Shakespearean while one eating
oranges writes like Elmore Leonard, I don't see how that could be
considered to be part of the textual creative process.
Mmbridge
"Tom Sawyer").
Mmbridge
:) Posted to the newsgroup R.G.B.O. If you want the complete
:) discussion on time, read and post directly to R.G.B.O.
"Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:barmar-D4EAA5....@wbnws01.core.ne.rr.com...
In article
<snipped>
> Good luck trying to claim that you wrote an
> exact copy of "Mark Twain" all by yourself.
<snipped>
Barry Margolin
"Mmbridge" <jimf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You lost me below. I think you meant an exact copy of "Huckleberry Finn" (or
> "Tom Sawyer").
No, I meant a biography of the author. :)
But if a simple mistake like that is enough to lose you, then the legal
issues may be too complex.
>
> "Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:barmar-D4EAA5....@wbnws01.core.ne.rr.com...
> In article
>
> <snipped>
>
> > Good luck trying to claim that you wrote an
> > exact copy of "Mark Twain" all by yourself.
>
> <snipped>
>
>
>
>
--
Chris Philp
Barry, you have stated two separate positions which are completely
different. To quote your original response:
<quote>
Unless it's simply the record of a particular event, the choice of
which hands to include in the compilation may be a creative process,
rendering the compilation copyrightable. For instance, when you read
an article about an event like the Spingold, the author makes
deliberate choices about which hands to discuss.
<unquote>
First, you say it's simply the record of a particular event and then
you say the author includes discussion. These are completely
different. In the first case, Henk is correct that simply selecting
these and publishing them without comment would not be copyrightable,
someone else is also free to do this. However, as soon as you add
discussion, that becomes a work and has copyright for what *you*
wrote, there is still nothing to prevent another author discussing the
same subset *in his own words*.
Take the extreme example - many articles are written about a single
hand. This is the irreducible minimum subset and it is obvious that
some hands are of great interest and that many people discuss the same
hand over and over in articles in magazines, books etc. This shows
that neither the hand record nor the hand record subset became the
property of the first person to write about it - they simply owned the
copyright to the article they wrote.
The prospect of someone publishing a list of hands without writing
anything of their own at all is unlikely. What is possible is that
someone states in a foreword that they have selected the following
hands on the criteria that... blah blah - that may have IPR issues in
that to reproduce the same subset for the same reasons (i.e.
satisfying the same criteria) could be said to infringe IPR.
IPR is different in that you have to show that your idea is
substantively different from another which preceded it, effectively
that the difference(s) make it become a different idea.
>> I doubt it: 2 authors can independently look at the hand records, apply
>> different criteria and still come up with the same subset of hands.
>
>True. In copyright, independent creation is always a valid defense.
>But I believe courts will try to assess the likelihood of this happening
>in any particular instance. Good luck trying to claim that you wrote an
>exact copy of "Mark Twain" all by yourself.
It is also worth noting that once you move outside of criminal law the
test being applied is not necessarily "innocent until proven guilty",
but "on the balance of probabilities". I believe this is what is
applied in these cases.
Chris Philp
Chris Philp
>In article <SE4F6.27591$JV1.3...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
> "Mmbridge" <jimf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You lost me below. I think you meant an exact copy of "Huckleberry Finn" (or
>> "Tom Sawyer").
>
>No, I meant a biography of the author. :)
>
the biography since a biography has basis in facts which are
information in the public domain.
>But if a simple mistake like that is enough to lose you, then the legal
>issues may be too complex.
>
Ahhh. So now it was a mistake? Perhaps lying with consistency over two
sentences is too complex for some ;)
Sorry - I couldn't resist that. I thought your comment was uncalled
for.
Barry Margolin
Chris Philp <chris...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> I agree with Henk.
> Barry, you have stated two separate positions which are completely
> different. To quote your original response:
>
> <quote>
> Unless it's simply the record of a particular event, the choice of
> which hands to include in the compilation may be a creative process,
> rendering the compilation copyrightable. For instance, when you read
> an article about an event like the Spingold, the author makes
> deliberate choices about which hands to discuss.
> <unquote>
>
> First, you say it's simply the record of a particular event and then
> you say the author includes discussion.
I was only discussing the hand records, for the purpose of determining
whether another article that copies those hand records is infringing.
The distinction I was making was an article that has *all* the hands
versus one that only has selected hands. In the latter case, the
selection process may be creative, so if someone copies the selection
they're infringing your copyright. But if the article has all the
hands, then it's simply factual, and another article that copies any or
all of the hand records is not infringing.
Barry Margolin
Chris Philp <chris...@mailcity.com> wrote:
Well, I didn't think your comment was necessary, either, so I was merely
responding in kind. This whole tangent has been rather silly.
Chris Philp
wrote:
Actually the comment to which you responded originally was not mine.
Let's move on.
Chris Ryall
>Unless it's simply the record of a particular event, the choice of
>which hands to include in the compilation may be a creative process,
>rendering the compilation copyrightable.
I'm not sure this justifies copyright on a listing of
*all* the hands/table results. What creativity in that?
DEH
issue: "who owns (or can lay claim to) the original set of hands?"
Also not raised was: "is a subset of 25000 hands copyrightable by
somebody, anybody within or outside the organization in which
context it was originally generated?".
The question rather was, can anybody take a set such as the 25000,
add a program and sell it (without a patent or copyright being
mentioned).
No added discussions were involved either.
Chris Ryall
>I am not sure this discussion addresses the originally raised
>issue: "who owns (or can lay claim to) the original set of hands?"
>
>Also not raised was: "is a subset of 25000 hands copyrightable by
>somebody, anybody within or outside the organization in which
>context it was originally generated?".
>
>The question rather was, can anybody take a set such as the 25000,
>add a program and sell it (without a patent or copyright being
>mentioned).
>
>No added discussions were involved either.
practice. I wouldn't support it. This is not private or academic use.
<top posting edited out>
Frood
I find it hard to beleive that anyone can lay claim to 25000 randomly
generated hands. If that is the case, I could just patent the remaining
and sell them to the ACBL whenever they hold a tourney.
Hmmm....I should go check this out with my patent lawyer....
Chris Philp
>I am not sure this discussion addresses the originally raised
>issue: "who owns (or can lay claim to) the original set of hands?"
>
>Also not raised was: "is a subset of 25000 hands copyrightable by
>somebody, anybody within or outside the organization in which
>context it was originally generated?".
>
>The question rather was, can anybody take a set such as the 25000,
>add a program and sell it (without a patent or copyright being
>mentioned).
>
>No added discussions were involved either.
So what?
I think it's somewhat naive to believe that any discussion will remain
within the narrow limits of the originally posted question. It is
likely, if not inevitable, that similar and related situations will be
discussed.
In fact, people often discuss completely unrelated matters in
subthreads of their own - you are not obliged to keep reading
subthreads which don't interest you.
DEH
Gl
Dutch24
=======