[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
- From: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:55:43 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Olsson [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 5:15 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
> In article
> Richard Hartman <URL:mailto:email@example.com> wrote:
> > Interesting question. I think there is a
> functional/expressive difference
> > here. The output of the compilers is generated from input
> created by a
> > person especially to be converted by the compiler.
> So the output "inherits" the rights attached to the input, if
> the process
> can be viewed as a conversion? Interesting.
All theory mind you, my own view of what _should_ be, not
necessarily what _is_.
> > The output of a search
> > engine is the result of a mechanistic process -- nothing is really
> > _generated_ by this, it is _collected_ and presented. I
> would say that the
> > results of Google searches would not be copyrightable.
> It shouldn't be, but Google would disagree with you. They
> have put "© 2002
> Google" at the bottom of each and every result page. In
> effect, they claim
> copyright on all possible permutations of output, even the
> ones that have
> never been published. I'm pretty sure the "2002" increments
> when appropriate, so it is also eternal.
> Something is wrong with this. Of course the notice itself doesn't mean
> anything, it just shows what they believe their rights are.
There _is_ such a thing as a collection copyright ... however
I still don't believe that the results of a search engine
should have such protection. They were not _composed_,
they were _discovered_. A collection created by a human
anthologist bears at least _some_ mark of that person's
judgement of what should or should not be included. A
search machine's output is determined olely by it's input.
Of course, we have all recognized before that the law,
althought rife with razor-thin distinctions on it's
own ground, is horribly untutored in the fine distinctions
that we technologists sometimes make . . .
> > Otoh, if the courts had been led down this line of
> reasoning it should also
> > follow that Google searches could not be held as
> _violating_ copyright, and
> > yet it has (requiring Google to remove certain URLs from
> the results of
> > certain searches).
> > I would hope that this ruling was merely a result of a poor
> understanding of
> > the process and not how copyright law would function if
> properly informed.
> Maybe their claim of copyright is another way of saying "this
> is artistic
> expression", rather than just a list of results from an
> index. This, in turn,
> might be why they can also infringe on the rights of others with it.
I do not see how the output of a search engine could
possibly qualify as "artistic expression". Those programs
that spew out poetry and music might have an argument,
but a search engine? It's like copyrighting your shopping
list (which is, unfortunately, possible IIRC ...)
> I am fascinated by the idea that you can publish and
> copyright billions
> of permutations of output, just by writing a script. I have
> already got
> a suitable script that demonstrates the stupidity of that,
> but I need more
> information about the laws to perfect it.
I would be interested in seeing that script. What have
you called it? "MillionMonkeys.pl" perhaps ?
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!