Author: Slater Wold
Date: 17:20:51 05/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2002 at 18:35:32, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On May 03, 2002 at 17:13:59, Slater Wold wrote: > >Slater, thanks, it's interesting. I've got some questions >which perhaps other people or your lawyer can answer :) Ok. I will do my best. ;) >>1.) If Jeroen has *ever* gotten paid 1 penny from Rebel, the books are not his. >> If Ed or Christophe have ever bought him dinner, given him any kind of reward >>and/or compensation, he has NO legal claim to his books. This is a "for-hire" >>copyright, and according to US and International copyright laws, if you are >>compensated for something that recieves and/or is claimed under copyright laws, >>the copyright is not that of the creator, rather the person who paid for the >>work. > >I know nothing about these kind of things, but isn't this contrary >to, for example, Christophe selling his program both to ChessBase >and Rebel? i.e. if the book was developed originally without support >from Rebel, doesn't he have the possibility to sell it's usage? AFAIK the book that comes from Chessbase is not the Noomen book. As a matter of fact, I am 99% positive it isn't. Allowing distribution for a % of profits is one thing. Christophe has NEVER sold his product. >>3.) Only the code that generates chess moves are protected under copyright. >>Not the actual moves that it plays. Example: If I can get Crafty to play every >>single move that Rebel 4.0 will play, at the same ply, same speed, with the same >>PV, but can do it with at least 40% different code, I am not in violation of any >>copyright laws. > >Is the 40% an arbitrary number? (I think this boilds down to what >represents a derived work or something) No. United States law is that if the code of a program is 40% different, than it's a different program. Period. This is, of course, according to "professional" opinion. >>4.) Because the book is SOLD, it holds "free use". > >Is this the same as what is commonly called 'fair use'? That's what I meant to type. It was a lot. Sorry. :( >>Example: Say I as a human, >>were to study Jeroen's book for a year. Can he sue me because I play his >>opening lines in a REAL OTB game? NO HE CANNOT. Not even if there comes a day >>where I have Jeroen's entire tournament book in my head. Therefore, if I put >>work into going through his books, and import them into my engine, there is no >>copyright violation. Because I am using knowledge that is readily available to >>ANYONE who has bought the program, and importing them based on what the program >>I bought is telling me, I have every right as a paying customer to use the >>knowledge given to me by this program. > >This puzzles me. If I put work into converting the books to Sjengs format, >it isn't a copyright violation? Can I sell those 'new' books? (now _that_ >would really be a perverted possibility) Yes. According to a Lawfirm in Houston, and according to United States Copyright Law, you would be within your limits. Granted, you did not obtain the information in an "illegal" way. >Are the annotations also considered knowledge that is readily available? Yes. Because they are printed on the screen. >>5.) It IS illegal to hack a computer program to extract ANY data that it would >>never display on the screen. Therefore, if I obtained Jeroen's book by hacking >>the program and/or book format, I would be in violation of SEVERAL laws. >>Including copyright laws. > >I've got several questions about this one. > >a) I know this is true in the USA via the DMCA, but the DMCA is not >valid in Europe (though something similar may be enacted before the >end of this year). AFAIK, reverse-engineering might still be legal here. Everything I have stated is true in the USA. Contact someone in your area if you have questions. ;) >b) What is considered 'hacking the book format'? >It displays the book moves on screen, so converting the book doesn't >exactly seem to fit this. Hacking a book is any kind of manipulation to the book format and/or program to show (or export) all of the moves. Any use other than its intended use, could be considered hacking. >As I've already said before, I'm not going to copy the book, but there >were several statements from Jeroen for which I doubt legal founding. I don't think any of us here are. >It seems to be a concensus now that the book variations themselves >aren't copyrightable. However, there is one claim that bothers me, >and that is the one that I am not allowed to convert the book to a >format that is more convenient for me to use. You aren't. That would be considered hacking the book. UNLESS you sit down, and use the program AS IT WAS INTENDED and start your book from the basis of Jeroen's book. Which of course, would take no less time than creating your own book. Any use of the Rebel software, in a matter that it was not intended to be used is a form of "hacking". Any use that results in output useful to you, or your program is COMPLETLY legal. >The Rebel copyright license seems to prohibit this, but I've got >my questions as to the legality of that, considering that I never >got to know the copyright license until after buying the program. >Moreover, I think that converting the format of the book would be >something that falls under fair use/free use, i.e. it is a right >I acquired when buying the software that the license cannot take >away from me. You purchased that book when you purchased the Rebel software. Therefore any information you extract, WHILE USING THE REBEL SOFTWARE AS INTENDED, is 100% legal in any state, country, corridor. Period. I hope that helps, a little anyway.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.