Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:40:24 05/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2002 at 04:33:17, Slater Wold wrote: >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)" You answer your own question however. If it takes _work_ to sort thru tons of stuff and pick bits and pieces in a unique way, then that _work_ is subject to copyright laws. At least two different copyright/patent attorneys have come to this conclusion in presentations they have made to the university here. Otherwise you could not copyright programs since the statements are "charts, lists, tables, etc...". > >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. In the case in point, this is all moot anyway. Jeroen _has_ added his analysis, his "indicators" as to "play or don't play this move" and so forth. That is also copyrightable and means that stealing his work is a no-no. > >>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." I don't disagree at all... > >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. I still believe it depends on how you "throw it together". If a robot could produce the stuff then I would agree. But if it has human cognitive effort involved, then I don't...
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.