Dave, See my post to your comment under the old thread name. *In my opinion* things like test questions shouldn't be copyright-able. Also, *in my opinion* the use of "arrangement and formatting" in considering something copyrightable is , *in my opinion* -- have i mentioned that this is just my opinion ;o)-- not a good thing.
My argument is not what the law *is* but what I think it ought to be. The narrow scope of my argument, to me, doesn't include something like software code. On the subject of formatting, is it anyone's opinion that Ben would have been okay had he jumbled up the order of the questions? That's the arrangement part. As for the format part, I can see significant differences between Brian's format and Ben's format. Brian's has a much more "Windows-y" look and feel, while Ben's does not. Also Ben's says, "Question #1", while Brian's says, "[ 1 Question ]"... that's the sort of nit-picky nonsense that irks me about intellectual property. Okay, I've shirked my work enough, and let myself get sucked into a debate (interesting as it is) when I told myself not to. :o) So, it's back to work for me. I'll check the thread later. It's interesting to read what other folks have to say on a subject like this one. Cheers, Chris Dave Watts wrote: >> ... it is total nonsense to think that a) you did it out of >> spite for your own financial gain as we all know you "virtually" >> and otherwise and that b) any of those question which have >> BOOLEAN answers could ever be considered unique or copyrightable. >> Any one of us could have built a page with the very same questions >> and their finite answers to a list/webpage. I would doubt that >> any court (certainly outside of the US) would uphold a query >> about you posting the questions unless, as noted you were doing >> it in direct competition to CF Exam Buster based off its questions. >> > > I don't want to drag this out, but I think it's important for programmers, > who spend their time creating intellectual property, to have a better > understanding of intellectual property than this. > > First, motives don't matter. It doesn't matter why you copy intellectual > property, just that you do. > > Second, most courts, in the US and the West in general, recognize the > arrangement and formatting of data to be intellectual property. So, while > the use of a single question may be coincidental or may be fair use, the use > of a series of more-or-less identical questions would most likely be > recognized as infringing on intellectual property. There's an abundance of > case law on this topic, actually. Google 'copyright "arrangement of data"' > for all sorts of fun reading. One very interesting case (interesting to me, > anyway) hinged on pagination being added to public domain data! > > http://lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/Lawlib/Nov98/0309.html > http://www.federal-litigation.com/press.html > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized > instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, > Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. > Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:266783 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
