Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Unauthorized use of Rebel books

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 21:46:03 04/30/02

Go up one level in this thread


On April 30, 2002 at 23:38:18, Slater Wold wrote:

>On April 30, 2002 at 23:27:47, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On April 30, 2002 at 16:31:01, Peter McKenzie wrote:
>>
>>>On April 30, 2002 at 16:01:33, Slater Wold wrote:
>>>
>>>>On April 30, 2002 at 14:42:50, Jeroen Noomen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>During the last 6 - 12 months I have noticed a trend that there are very clear
>>>>>indications that non-commercial programmers of chess programs make use of (parts
>>>>>of) commercially available books. As I was in Maastricht during the WMCCC in
>>>>>2001, lots of speculations and complaints were heard about this topic.  From
>>>>>several sources I know that also the Rebel books have been ?hacked? by people (I
>>>>>will not mention their names, I am sure they know themselves whom I am talking
>>>>>about). As the Rebel books are my lifework I want to put a very clear statement
>>>>>in this forum.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Rebel books have been developped by me during a period of almost 14 years.
>>>>>Not only is it handmade, it also contains lots of stuff you will not find in
>>>>>other books. In the past it has happenend a few times that chess programs were
>>>>>caught as not being made by the programmer himself. Examples are Quick Step back
>>>>>in 1989, Greif, the several Crafty clones. As we can see from todays rules by
>>>>>the ICCA, such programs are not tolerated anymore. And in my view this is fully
>>>>>correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jeroen Noomen
>>>>>Bookauthor for Rebel and Chess Tiger
>>>>
>>>>I can understand your frustration.  You've worked just as hard as Ed or
>>>>Christophe on Rebel/Tiger.  No doubt your books add a considerable amount of Elo
>>>>to these programs, and I am sure Ed and Christophe are very appreciative of
>>>>that.
>>>>
>>>>However, I must warn you that laying claim to a series of chess opening moves is
>>>>not going to be easy to defend.  You cannot copyright moves in chess, as you
>>>>cannot copyright dance moves.  While you can copyright a mvs book, you are
>>>>actually only copyrighting the format.  Again, you cannot copyright chess moves.
>>>
>>>This isn't a copyright issue, its not even a legal issue in the traditional
>>>sense.  It is about the rules for a particular competition, namely the ICCA
>>>World Computer Chess Championship.  If the rules say that you can't use someone
>>>elses book in the tournament (and its not even clear that they do say this),
>>>then you can't use someone elses book regardless of what copyright says.
>>>
>>>Of course ICCA can't send you to jail if you break their rules :-)  But they can
>>>chuck you out of their tournament.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Actually copyright law _does_ apply.  You can't copyright a single chess
>>game, period.  But you _can_ copyright a "collection" of games, because the
>>work expended to "collect" the games is something that copyright law
>>protects.  It is very clear in this regard.  IE you can't copyright a
>>single word, or a definition of a word.  But you can copyright a collection
>>of words/definitions (called a dictionary of course) quite easily and
>>correctly.
>
>Like I said earlier, a single line, a single move, none of that can be
>copyrighted.
>
>And you cannot copyright a "collection" of games.  For example, say someone
>published a book (actual paperback book) with 300 Fischer games (no comments,
>nothing.  Just the games.) and was selling this book for $50.  And then someone
>else came along and published a book with the same exact 300 games, (in a
>different cover and style) for $25.  There is *NOTHING* that first person can
>do.  The Fischer games do NOT belong to him.

Sorry, but this is wrong.  IE I can _definitely_ copyright a collection such
as "Fischer's games where he used the theme 'xxxxx' to break through".  All
that copyright law requires is that I do some sort of "work" in putting the
collection together.  Just filtering all of Fischer's games won't fly.  But
"Fischer's 100 greatest games" is definitely copyrightable as that is a subset
of all the games he played and it required work/effort on my part to extract
just the games I thought important or related...

Again, this is just like a dictionary.  _nobody_ can copyright a word or list
of words.  Nor a definition for a word.  But a collection of words that takes
work to put together is certainly copyrightable...





>
>How many versions of dictionaries do we have out there?  They are all the same
>thing, they all have the same words and definitions in them.  ;)



They are _not_ all the same.  Some have words others don't.  The definitions
are different for many words...  etc.  Otherwise there would be massive law
suits...

The copyright applies to the _work_, not to the _material_ itself...  that is
why books are copyrighted.  Not the words individually.  But the work expended
to order the words into something that is different/unique...


>
>However, what that person could do, is insert varations, comments, etc., which
>are his ideas.  You CAN copyright your own ideas.  You cannot copyright someone
>elses games, or their "collection" of games though.
>
>>Opening books fit this perfectly...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>I think anyone found 'hacking' a chess program, or its book, should face a
>>>>severe punishment. Anyone claiming something is their, when in fact it is not,
>>>>should be punished.
>>>>
>>>>I am not defending these people, I am simply stating the fact that it would be
>>>>easier to encrypt the books, than to go after those stealing it.



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.