Re: Copyrighting facts (was: Re: Can you alter the MIT license?)
Hi Seth, very good explanaition! Angelo Seth David Schoen wrote: Bruce Perens writes: From: Justin Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] How far can you go with this notion that you cannot copyright a fact? Can you copyright the arrangement of chess men on a chess board? The arrangement of chess pieces is not the same sort of concrete fact as "Woodhaven Rd. runs between these two points". The strange paradox of copyright is that facts which result from creative intellectual effort are nonetheless facts. For example, the last character of the main text of Douglas Hofstadter's _Godel, Escher, Bach_ is an "r". The second character of (l'havdil) Microsoft Word 97 is a "Z". These are objective facts. In the same vein, I could look up the six hundred twenty-sixth note of Andrew Lloyd Webber's _Requiem_ (assuming a standard ordering of the instrumental voices within a work and the notes within an instrumental line). The identity of that note would also be an objective fact. These particular facts are not copyrightable (because of fair use), but the co-ordinated public mention of a sufficiently large number of them would still be a copyright violation. E.g. The first character of _Neuromancer_ is a "T". The second character of _Neuromancer_ is an "h". The third character of _Neuromancer_ is an "e". The fourth character of _Neuromancer_ is a space. The fifth character of _Neuromancer_ is an "s". The sixth character of _Neuromancer_ is a "k". [...] If I continued this sequence for a little while longer, I would be guilty of a copyright violation. How is that sequence of objective facts essentially different from the following sequence of objective facts? The elevation, in feet, of Alameda, California, is 30. The elevation, in feet, of Berkeley, California, is 150. The elevation, in feet, of Cupertino, California, is 236. The elevation, in feet, of Daly City, California, is 300. The elevation, in feet, of Emeryville, California, is 15. The elevation, in feet, of Fremont, California, is 53. [...] Presumably, the information contained in one is the result of organized human creative effort, where the other is not. (It _is_ the result of human effort, in the form of the USGS GNIS.) So, can I copyright the following? 1aef 9a8e 707e 8274 391d 6de4 3c76 da65 bd62 d2bc 4635 c915 141b 3a33 2fc2 7baa 7be7 7f3d 0cb5 f460 5adb d52d 1231 274e 2f02 a75e 7cc8 faa5 f2fe ad36 110b ba02 fe23 17eb e15f 484a 776d 6a3a 08a1 686f a329 9593 58a0 54b4 6f48 75ea bc61 bd3e 90a2 6d76 03f5 a7ab b45e 3d4b 8b6a 8480 964b 614a 0c38 68c2 718b 53ce a39d 89f9 7109 66ed 6000 591e 6006 5e26 9b4b 7143 950a 2272 531d a0cd ccc9 9797 3670 7828 If you are the author. You have the copyright on that. Why? You could claim this as art! How would you proofe that its art? Well if someone copies it you have the context in which he copied it. If he tried to sell this great art, than it is, even if noone else recognizes it that way. Furthr more: Your code above is yust a code. That means how you code your informatin or art is not important for the fact that it is copyrighted. Even if I crypt an excerpt of Bach I would violate propably some rights. Ok, better: I encrypt a song of Sting (he still lives), noone would understnd the coding. But it was his work, so I violate his rights. Do you need to know what it is first to say whether I can copyright it? No, it must be (not even intellectual) work, done by a human or initiated by a human. However some works are to trivial (see the/YOUR law for those exceptions). I don't think it's possible to consider the copyright system reasonable, logical, intuitive, or founded on readily comprehensible rules. Certainly the idea that "you can't copyright facts" won't help someone who desires to report the fact that the text of Microsoft Word is... (well, that person is not myself). -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/| have leisure; for perhaps you will http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF)| not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 Best Regards, Angelo - Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Copyrighting facts (was: Re: Can you alter the MIT license?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's a great deal of information about copyright and copyrightable subject matter available from the Library of Congress Office of Copyright. It is probably all on the web too. Oh, I don't mean to suggest that there aren't standards or that they aren't published, just that the scope of copyright isn't intuitive (or logical, or accurately summarized by straightforward rules). And there are strange paradoxes and unclear dividing lines everywhere. I think, for this conversation, the key thing that applies, in the area of literary works (which software once fell into, but I haven't kept track of recent revisions), is that copyright applies to original expression. Caselaw in the United States has had an interesting time trying to explain the meaning of "expression". :-) -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/| have leisure; for perhaps you will http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF)| not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Copyrighting facts (was: Re: Can you alter the MIT license?)
Bruce Perens writes: From: Justin Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] How far can you go with this notion that you cannot copyright a fact? Can you copyright the arrangement of chess men on a chess board? The arrangement of chess pieces is not the same sort of concrete fact as "Woodhaven Rd. runs between these two points". The strange paradox of copyright is that facts which result from creative intellectual effort are nonetheless facts. For example, the last character of the main text of Douglas Hofstadter's _Godel, Escher, Bach_ is an "r". The second character of (l'havdil) Microsoft Word 97 is a "Z". These are objective facts. In the same vein, I could look up the six hundred twenty-sixth note of Andrew Lloyd Webber's _Requiem_ (assuming a standard ordering of the instrumental voices within a work and the notes within an instrumental line). The identity of that note would also be an objective fact. These particular facts are not copyrightable (because of fair use), but the co-ordinated public mention of a sufficiently large number of them would still be a copyright violation. E.g. The first character of _Neuromancer_ is a "T". The second character of _Neuromancer_ is an "h". The third character of _Neuromancer_ is an "e". The fourth character of _Neuromancer_ is a space. The fifth character of _Neuromancer_ is an "s". The sixth character of _Neuromancer_ is a "k". [...] If I continued this sequence for a little while longer, I would be guilty of a copyright violation. How is that sequence of objective facts essentially different from the following sequence of objective facts? The elevation, in feet, of Alameda, California, is 30. The elevation, in feet, of Berkeley, California, is 150. The elevation, in feet, of Cupertino, California, is 236. The elevation, in feet, of Daly City, California, is 300. The elevation, in feet, of Emeryville, California, is 15. The elevation, in feet, of Fremont, California, is 53. [...] Presumably, the information contained in one is the result of organized human creative effort, where the other is not. (It _is_ the result of human effort, in the form of the USGS GNIS.) So, can I copyright the following? 1aef 9a8e 707e 8274 391d 6de4 3c76 da65 bd62 d2bc 4635 c915 141b 3a33 2fc2 7baa 7be7 7f3d 0cb5 f460 5adb d52d 1231 274e 2f02 a75e 7cc8 faa5 f2fe ad36 110b ba02 fe23 17eb e15f 484a 776d 6a3a 08a1 686f a329 9593 58a0 54b4 6f48 75ea bc61 bd3e 90a2 6d76 03f5 a7ab b45e 3d4b 8b6a 8480 964b 614a 0c38 68c2 718b 53ce a39d 89f9 7109 66ed 6000 591e 6006 5e26 9b4b 7143 950a 2272 531d a0cd ccc9 9797 3670 7828 Do you need to know what it is first to say whether I can copyright it? I don't think it's possible to consider the copyright system reasonable, logical, intuitive, or founded on readily comprehensible rules. Certainly the idea that "you can't copyright facts" won't help someone who desires to report the fact that the text of Microsoft Word is... (well, that person is not myself). -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/| have leisure; for perhaps you will http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF)| not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
