Plagarist and TK friend Karsen Mueller writing an unauthorized book on Nakamura

[raylopez99]

From a TWIC Twitter on the Mueller-Nakamura dispute. Mueller is a sometime ally of Taylor Kingston, and you know how these guys love to complain about copyright infringement until the shoe is on the other foot--then they play dumb. Here, Mueller is misleading the public about the source of his upcoming book at the very least, and at the very most arguably is infringing Nakamura's copyrighted moves. After all, a dance sequence is copyrightable, so why not chess moves where you have headers? Let me explain: if you simply list chess moves without headers (so nobody knows who was White, and who played Black) then that's not a copyright violation. But if you include headers that's a unique artistic endeavor that's identifiable with the artists that played White and Black--and arguably copyrighted solely by them. This is a reasonable interpretation and it's surprising to me that Copyright Offices worldwide have not taken this stance. Like I say, dance moves and ballet moves attributed to performers are copyrightable--so why not chess moves?

I'd like to hear what nonsense plagiarist-supporter and copyright-thief Taylor Kingston has to say about this.

RL

Nakamura objects to upcoming book of his games

Nakamura is letting everyone know there's a book on its way about his games called "Fighting Chess with Hikaru Nakamura" by Karsen Mueller. He has played no part in the preparation of the book and won't get any money. But this has always been the case with similar volumes. Fischer wasn't keen on this either.

Hikaru Nakamura @GMHikaru http://www.edition-olms.com/index.php?id=265 It is truly disgusting that people are allowed to write books and profit off of our games without our permission.

Hikaru Nakamura @GMHikaru @WhzYerDaddy We'll see what the book is like, but the title including the word "with" in its title is disingenuous to begin with...

[Taylor Kingston]

I suspect our Ray is pulling our collective leg yet again, but just
for the record, I will reply.

As he surely knows, chess games, whether the players are identified
or not, are not covered by copyright. If he does not know this, he is
far more ignorant than I previously believed.

The idea of copyrighting them has been mooted any number of times in
the past (as far back as the 1850s), but has never amounted to
anything. They are no more subject to copryright than, for example,
the box scores of baseball games. For a discussion of the subject,
read this:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/copyright.html

As for this being an "unauthorized book," no authorization is
required from a player to write about his chess games. I don't
understand why Nakamura is upset about it; most people would be
flattered.

> I'd like to hear what nonsense plagiarist-supporter and copyright-thief Taylor Kingston has to say about this.

Good grief. I have never supported plagiarism or violated anyone's
copyright. Meanwhile our brave Ray continues to commit acts of
obscenity and libel, cloaked in newsgroup anonymity.

On May 27, 12:07 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From a TWIC Twitter on the Mueller-Nakamura dispute.  Mueller is a sometime ally of Taylor Kingston, and you know how these guys love to complain about copyright infringement until the shoe is on the other foot--then they play dumb.  Here, Mueller is misleading the public about the source of his upcoming book at the very least, and at the very most arguably is infringing Nakamura's copyrighted moves.  After all, a dance sequence is copyrightable, so why not chess moves where you have headers?  Let me explain:  if you simply list chess moves without headers (so nobody knows who was White, and who played Black) then that's not a copyright violation.  But if you include headers that's a unique artistic endeavor that's identifiable with the artists that played White and Black--and arguably copyrighted solely by them.  This is a reasonable interpretation and it's surprising to me that Copyright Offices worldwide have not taken this stance.  Like I say, dance moves and ballet moves attributed to performers are copyrightable--so why not chess moves?
>
> I'd like to hear what nonsense plagiarist-supporter and copyright-thief Taylor Kingston has to say about this.
>
> RL
>
> Nakamura objects to upcoming book of his games
>
> Nakamura is letting everyone know there's a book on its way about his games called "Fighting Chess with Hikaru Nakamura" by Karsen Mueller. He has played no part in the preparation of the book and won't get any money. But this has always been the case with similar volumes. Fischer wasn't keen on this either.
>

> Hikaru Nakamura @GMHikaruhttp://www.edition-olms.com/index.php?id=265It is truly disgusting that people are allowed to write books and profit off of our games without our permission.

[raylopez99]

On Monday, May 28, 2012 6:31:30 AM UTC+8, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> I suspect our Ray is pulling our collective leg yet again, but just
> for the record, I will reply.
>
> As he surely knows, chess games, whether the players are identified
> or not, are not covered by copyright. If he does not know this, he is
> far more ignorant than I previously believed.

You knead a coarse in reeding comprehension. I said in my OP that I realize chess games cannot be copyright, but SHOULD be copyright. Do dance moves and ballet mean nothing to you, mullet-head? WHoosh! Right over your flat top.

>
> The idea of copyrighting them has been mooted any number of times in
> the past (as far back as the 1850s), but has never amounted to
> anything. They are no more subject to copryright than, for example,
> the box scores of baseball games. For a discussion of the subject,
> read this:

Baseball scores he says. FYI they ARE copyrightable. That's why you CANNOT rebroadcast a baseball score or play-by-play unless you have the express written permission of the teams (like MLB). Well litigated, just Google it. Try and rebroadcast a baseball game and see how you'll be sued. Copyright.

> As for this being an "unauthorized book," no authorization is
> required from a player to write about his chess games. I don't
> understand why Nakamura is upset about it; most people would be
> flattered.

Nope. Again, reeding incomprehension by you. Nakamura rightfully states that the title of the book is misleading, by implying Nakamura himself has a hand in its creation. "Fighting Chess with Hikaru Nakamura" by Karsen Mueller. WITH. That implies Nakamura was standing over the shoulder of your penpal Mueller while Mueller was writing the book. Don't be a mule and not see that point. In fact, if you read Nakamura's tweet he says exactly that: "Hikaru Nakamura @GMHikaru @WhzYerDaddy We'll see what the book is like, but the title including the word "with" in its title is disingenuous to begin with..."

You may prefer the weak IM German Mueller over the super GM Asian-American Nakamura because of your racism, but that does not excuse what Mueller is doing: trying to profit from Nakamura's success.

>
> > I'd like to hear what nonsense plagiarist-supporter and copyright-thief Taylor Kingston has to say about this.
>
> Good grief. I have never supported plagiarism or violated anyone's
> copyright. Meanwhile our brave Ray continues to commit acts of
> obscenity and libel, cloaked in newsgroup anonymity.
>

Nope, I do not. You are the one who is consistently hostile to me. I'm just reporting the facts as I see them.

RL

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 27, 6:40 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 28, 2012 6:31:30 AM UTC+8, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > I suspect our Ray is pulling our collective leg yet again, but just
> > for the record, I will reply.
>
> >   As he surely knows, chess games, whether the players are identified
> > or not, are not covered by copyright. If he does not know this, he is
> > far more ignorant than I previously believed.
>
> You knead a coarse in reeding comprehension.  I said in my OP that I realize chess games cannot be copyright, but SHOULD be copyright.

When they are, let me know. Perhaps you can get Sam Sloan to argue
the matter before the Supreme Court.

> Baseball scores he says.  FYI they ARE copyrightable.

No, neither raw baseball scores (the mere tally of runs scored) nor
the box scores (which include the stats for each batter and pitcher)
are subject to copyright.

>  That's why you CANNOT rebroadcast a baseball score

You certainly can rebroadcast baseball scores. Every TV and radio
station in the country does that every night, plus every newspaper
publishes them. No copyright involved.

> or play-by-play

I said nothing about play-by-play commentary. That is subject to
copyright. But that has no bearing on the Mueller book.

> You may prefer the weak IM German Mueller

He's a GM.

Now, Ray, as Rowan and Martin used to say: "Go to your room."

[Offramp]

On Monday, 28 May 2012 03:15:17 UTC+1, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> I said nothing about play-by-play commentary. That is subject to
> copyright. But that has no bearing on the Mueller book.

In a way it does, as anyone's comment to a chess game is copyrightable.
Chess games are NOT now and never will be copyrightable.
Comments to a chess game ARE copyrightable.
The French original of Les Miserables is OUT OF COPYRIGHT, it is too old.
If I made a new translation of Les Miserables, or a musical version of it, that would be IN copyright.

If Nakamura is annoyed - and God knows why he would be - then all he has to do is bring out a book of his own best games and let the two books slug it out on the Amazon bestseller list.

If I were going to buy either book it would be Muller's, as I like his books.
But I wouldn't buy either.

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 28, 2:34 am, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 28 May 2012 03:15:17 UTC+1, Taylor Kingston  wrote:
> >   I said nothing about play-by-play commentary. That is subject to
> > copyright. But that has no bearing on the Mueller book.
>
> In a way it does, as anyone's comment to a chess game is copyrightable.
> Chess games are NOT now and never will be copyrightable.
> Comments to a chess game ARE copyrightable.

Alan, your comment would be relevant if Mueller had plagiarized
Nakamaura annotations, but he has not. He has written his own
annotations to Nakamura games.

[micky]

Oh, you po' po' babee.. is that nasty Mr Kingston victumising u agin?..

& u being such a weeny olive, u don't ...

git stuffed wit pimento like teh big boys either

po' thing..

[Offramp]

On Monday, 28 May 2012 16:23:50 UTC+1, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On May 28, 2:34 am, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 28 May 2012 03:15:17 UTC+1, Taylor Kingston  wrote:
> > >   I said nothing about play-by-play commentary. That is subject to
> > > copyright. But that has no bearing on the Mueller book.
> >
> > In a way it does, as anyone's comment to a chess game is copyrightable.
> > Chess games are NOT now and never will be copyrightable.
> > Comments to a chess game ARE copyrightable.
>
> Alan, your comment would be relevant if Mueller had plagiarized
> Nakamaura annotations, but he has not. He has written his own
> annotations to Nakamura games.

My comment is still relevant because my comment was that "Comments to a chess game ARE copyrightable".

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 28, 9:51 pm, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 28 May 2012 16:23:50 UTC+1, Taylor Kingston  wrote:
> > On May 28, 2:34 am, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, 28 May 2012 03:15:17 UTC+1, Taylor Kingston  wrote:
> > > >   I said nothing about play-by-play commentary. That is subject to
> > > > copyright. But that has no bearing on the Mueller book.
>
> > > In a way it does, as anyone's comment to a chess game is copyrightable.
> > > Chess games are NOT now and never will be copyrightable.
> > > Comments to a chess game ARE copyrightable.
>
> >   Alan, your comment would be relevant if Mueller had plagiarized
> > Nakamaura annotations, but he has not. He has written his own
> > annotations to Nakamura games.
>
> My comment is still relevant because my comment was that "Comments to a chess game ARE copyrightable".

Never said they weren't. But that has no bearing on the Mueller
book.

[raylopez99]

Nope. Wrong again. You cannot rebroadcast even factual information of a baseball game in progress, such as "batter hits the ball in left field for a single". Copyright.

>
> > You may prefer the weak IM German Mueller
>
> He's a GM.
>

He was an IM last a checked a few weeks ago, unless he won some GM norms.

RL

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 8, 3:51 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You may prefer the weak IM German Mueller
>
> >   He's a GM.
>
> He was an IM last a checked a few weeks ago, unless he won some GM norms.

Our Ray remains as misinformed as ever. Müller got the GM title in
1998:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_M%C3%BCller