Author: Slater Wold
Date: 01:33:17 05/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2002 at 00:46:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... No! Not at all! Things that cannot be copyrighted, straight from the copyright office: "Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)" Those games are COMMON PROPERTY. Just publishing the games, you are publishing common property. Like I said, if you insert some kind of analysis, or comments, THOSE are protected by copyright laws, and ONLY those. And ONLY the "original authorship" is covered. You could write the SAME exact book, with the SAME exact games, with new/different analysis and you would NOT be breaking ANY laws. >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... And again, from the copyright office: "Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems or methods." Once again, throwing together common property and putting your stamp on it, because you were the one to throw it together, does NOT make it your intellectual property. Not legally 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.