Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 03:41:09 05/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2002 at 00:22:05, Russell Reagan wrote: >On May 01, 2002 at 00:01:42, allan johnson wrote: > >> Russell I found your response logical and persuasive.When I first read Jeroen's >> message I sympathised with him a great deal but after reading your rejoinder >> I've been convinced that he really shouldn't expect to own chess openings. >> Al > >It's a difficult area. An opening book is basically a set of "instructions" just >like an executable program is. An executable program is really just a series of >numbers that act as instructions. I think that it requires a higher level of >understanding to infer copyright on a series of numbers. It is not the series of >numbers themselves that are copyrighted, but the higher level of the concept of >an "instruction" that is copyrighted. For example, you could take a program that >is copyrighted, and in 100 years when the hardware we use today doesn't even >exist, that set of instructions probably won't even work. So at that point those >series of numbers aren't even useful, but the instructions are still the >author's intellectual property. But then you can get into the debate over >whether the instructions are even the author's creation. The author used a >compiler that (in most cases) will create faster code than if the author had >written the binary instructions himself. Most people probably don't have enough >knowledge to write code that is as efficient as what a compiler produces at the >ASM level. I could probably write a chess program in ASM (although I'd hate >doing it), but it would probably be drastically slower than what a compiler >produces. So should the people who wrote the compiler have any claim to the set >of instructions? As I said, it's a tricky area. > >I just think that trying to win this argument is silly. It's something that you >simply can't enforce, and even if you could, it's still up for debate what is >"right" and what is "wrong". Some people believe certain things are right and >wrong based on religious beliefs. The law of our governments often allows for >things that religion considers wrong. Abortion for example, or looking at >pornographic material. Government allows those things, but in a religious >context they would be considered wrong. If a tournament was held in a country >that did not recognize copyright laws, what then? > >Russell Well there are ways to copyright chess moves It only depends on the way they are distributed. You all must have seen me as a fool when I posted my analyses here I was a litle naieve hoping some people would apreciate my work and would give me some rewards or job for it. But When I started posting I also did it for the love I have for chess. By sharing my knowledge I contributed much for chess theory which only is of importance when it is known! But I was left up by only defending my position instead. There is in fact no religion or gouvernment which will suport such kind of actions. Regards Marc
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.