10 Feb, 2008, Guest wrote in the 102nd comment:
Some additional source material which backs up everything KaVir and David have been saying: Originality Requirements under U.S. and ... I found the article a fascinating read.
10 Feb, 2008, drrck wrote in the 103rd comment:
DavidHaley said:
Look, do you think I'm stupid? Your keyboard probably has a page-down button. Use it. You can even use the down key. Or the mouse wheel. Take your pick… And next time, maybe you should look a little more closely when I not only provide a link saying it has content, but also gently correct you when you tell me the link is just a half page. Sheesh.
I don't know if the page isn't properly loading on my browser or you're just plain delusional, but I would have hoped you'd give me at least enough credit to think that I know how to scroll.
DavidHaley said:
I'm not sure why you would want to provoke thought if not to have it be followed by a discussion, but hey… :shrug: Maybe we should all just stop this silliness and meditate in our own thought-provoked corners. :smile:
Plenty of reasons; not the least of which is the one I just gave you.
DavidHaley said:
Unfortunately wrong, as is evidenced by e.g. translations. You have created a derived work. You are forgetting that there is more to content than the literal words – there are things like sentence structure, paragraphs, chapter structure, etc. Indeed, in code you can't just rewrite the lines one at a time and leave the program structure alone. You need to do quite a bit more than that to claim that you actually rewrote the whole thing.
Translations are not unique work, they are derived (as defined by copyright law). I explicitly stated this my post: "lack of truly unique code (i.e. only re-styling, porting, translating, etc.)" so I'm unsure why you brought it up. Also, the structure of a literary work is not copyrightable, as evidenced by the fact that it's an intangible concept, and as pointed out quite clearly by KaVir, those aren't covered.
10 Feb, 2008, Darwin wrote in the 104th comment:
drrck said:
If I take an e-book and start replacing sentences one-by-one until I have a 100% unique work authored by me, I will have the same rights to it as if I had started from a blank Word document.
This is still plagiarism.
Quote
plagiarism [play‐jă‐rizm], the theft of ideas (such as the plots of narrative or dramatic works) or of written passages or works, where these are passed off as one's own work without acknowledgement of their true origin; or a piece of writing thus stolen. Plagiarism is not always easily separable from imitation, adaptation, or pastiche, but is usually distinguished by its dishonest intention.
Or, more related to code:
Quote
Using ideas, plots, text and other intellectual property developed by someone else while claiming it is your original work.
I'm sorry to quote definitions, but the concept of plagiarism seemed to have escaped you, even if only momentarily.
drrck said:
The same applies for code.
Since written code is protected under the same terms as literary works, this statement would be correct.
Kayle said:
trolling…
I thought the same thing.
10 Feb, 2008, drrck wrote in the 105th comment:
KaVir said:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyr...
"Most courts confronted with the issue have determined that copyright protection extends not only to the literal elements of a program, i.e., its source code and object code, but also to its "nonliteral" elements, such as the program architecture, "structure, sequence and organization", operational modules, and computer-user interface. See, e.g., Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992)"
"Most courts confronted with the issue have determined that copyright protection extends not only to the literal elements of a program, i.e., its source code and object code, but also to its "nonliteral" elements, such as the program architecture, "structure, sequence and organization", operational modules, and computer-user interface. See, e.g., Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992)"
Quoted from your source:
"The same cautious approach to protection is appropriate for computer user interfaces. To the extent that they are highly functional, or, like the output formats in this case, to the extent that they contain highly standardized technical information, they may lie very near the line of uncopyrightability."
One judge's interpretation in this particular case does not prove validity in your comment; especially considering the fact that if you read further, you'll see that it was first rejected, and there are many other cases where the ruling has been completely opposite.
KaVir said:
Wrong again. They are the non-literal elements of original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible form of expression.
Yeah, well, there's a simple test to demonstrate why that doesn't work. Try copyrighting "structure" without any source code.
KaVir said:
If you replace the English sentences of the e-book with the translated equivalent in Russian, then all of the original words will have been replaced - none of the literal elements will remain. However your new work will still be a derivative work, because copyright also extends to non-literal elements.
Again, I explicitly stated "truly unique" does not encompass translation, porting, re-styling, and the like. I suggest you and DavidHaley actually read my posts?
10 Feb, 2008, drrck wrote in the 106th comment:
Darwin said:
This is still plagiarism.
Or, more related to code:
I'm sorry to quote definitions, but the concept of plagiarism seemed to have escaped you, even if only momentarily.
Quote
plagiarism [play‐jă‐rizm], the theft of ideas (such as the plots of narrative or dramatic works) or of written passages or works, where these are passed off as one's own work without acknowledgement of their true origin; or a piece of writing thus stolen. Plagiarism is not always easily separable from imitation, adaptation, or pastiche, but is usually distinguished by its dishonest intention.
Or, more related to code:
Quote
Using ideas, plots, text and other intellectual property developed by someone else while claiming it is your original work.
I'm sorry to quote definitions, but the concept of plagiarism seemed to have escaped you, even if only momentarily.
"Plagiarism is not always easily separable from imitation, adaptation, or pastiche, but is usually distinguished by its dishonest intention."
In the case that you replace all of the original code with uniquely authored code (again, that is not just translation, porting, or re-styling), there is no dishonest intention.
If you want to participate in the discussion, feel free; however, it would behoove you to grow up and make your arguments without getting personal.
10 Feb, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 107th comment:
drrck said:
Also, the structure of a literary work is not copyrightable, as evidenced by the fact that it's an intangible concept, and as pointed out quite clearly by KaVir, those aren't covered.
No, what I quoted was: "Most courts confronted with the issue have determined that copyright protection extends not only to the literal elements of a program, i.e., its source code and object code, but also to its "nonliteral" elements, such as the program architecture, "structure, sequence and organization", operational modules, and computer-user interface. See, e.g., Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992)"
In other words, most courts have indeed determined that the structure of computer programs (which may be registered as "literary works") may be protected by copyright.
drrck said:
Quoted from your source:
"The same cautious approach to protection is appropriate for computer user interfaces. To the extent that they are highly functional, or, like the output formats in this case, to the extent that they contain highly standardized technical information, they may lie very near the line of uncopyrightability."
One judge's interpretation in this particular case does not prove validity in your comment; especially considering the fact that if you read further, you'll see that it was first rejected, and there are many other cases where the ruling has been completely opposite.
"The same cautious approach to protection is appropriate for computer user interfaces. To the extent that they are highly functional, or, like the output formats in this case, to the extent that they contain highly standardized technical information, they may lie very near the line of uncopyrightability."
One judge's interpretation in this particular case does not prove validity in your comment; especially considering the fact that if you read further, you'll see that it was first rejected, and there are many other cases where the ruling has been completely opposite.
Which is why I said "Within the context of muds, non-literal elements might (or might not, depending on the specific case) include such factors as the program architecture, structure, sequence and organization, operational modules, and user interfaces."
Picking just one of the six factors I listed, and claiming that it has been rejected in some cases, is a very poor way of trying to argue your point - particularly when I've repeatedly explained to you that there are no simple answers, that the law isn't the simple thing you seem to want it to be, and that each case would need to be analysed separately based on the abstraction-filtration-comparison test.
drrck said:
Yeah, well, there's a simple test to demonstrate why that doesn't work.
KaVir said:
They are the non-literal elements of original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible form of expression.
Yeah, well, there's a simple test to demonstrate why that doesn't work.
It does work - it's been tested in court. I've already provided you the links.
drrck said:
Try copyrighting "structure" without any source code.
Apparently you still don't understand the concept of "tangible form of expression". While non-literal elements are protected, there still has to be something for them to be non-literal elements of.
drrck said:
Again, I explicitly stated "truly unique" does not encompass translation, porting, re-styling, and the like.
KaVir said:
If you replace the English sentences of the e-book with the translated equivalent in Russian, then all of the original words will have been replaced - none of the literal elements will remain. However your new work will still be a derivative work, because copyright also extends to non-literal elements.
drrck said:
If I take an e-book and start replacing sentences one-by-one until I have a 100% unique work authored by me, I will have the same rights to it as if I had started from a blank Word document
If you replace the English sentences of the e-book with the translated equivalent in Russian, then all of the original words will have been replaced - none of the literal elements will remain. However your new work will still be a derivative work, because copyright also extends to non-literal elements.
Again, I explicitly stated "truly unique" does not encompass translation, porting, re-styling, and the like.
You're still missing the point. Translations are a clear and simple example of derivative works created by non-literal copying. The fact that they completely undermine your claims about non-literal copying makes them a valid point to discuss, not something we should ignore.
If you accept that translations are derivative works, then you must also accept that it's possible to create a derivative work based purely on the copying of non-literal elements.
11 Feb, 2008, Darwin wrote in the 108th comment:
drrck said:
In the hypothetical situation you describe, there is no way of telling if the intention was dishonest or not. However, if the end code has the same function as the code it replaced, then it would still be plagiarized. Just because you change how the code was written does not change what it did. The function of the code should be credited to the original author. Simply replacing the code with something you wrote doesn't mean you came up with the idea all on your own.
In the case that you replace all of the original code with uniquely authored code (again, that is not just translation, porting, or re-styling), there is no dishonest intention.
11 Feb, 2008, drrck wrote in the 109th comment:
KaVir said:
No, what I quoted was: "Most courts confronted with the issue have determined that copyright protection extends not only to the literal elements of a program, i.e., its source code and object code, but also to its "nonliteral" elements, such as the program architecture, "structure, sequence and organization", operational modules, and computer-user interface. See, e.g., Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992)"
In other words, most courts have indeed determined that the structure of computer programs (which may be registered as "literary works") may be protected by copyright.
In other words, most courts have indeed determined that the structure of computer programs (which may be registered as "literary works") may be protected by copyright.
I suppose the vast majority of literature is infringing on previous works' copyrights then, if structure is copyrightable. I can't even begin to list the problems with that assumption. To give a prime example, how many books have you read in which "unlikely hero is put in an impossible situation and defeats overwhelming odds to save the day"? If that structure is copyrightable, I guess we ought to purge the world of the vast majority of fantasy, sci-fi, and other miscellaneous fictional works.
KaVir said:
Which is why I said "Within the context of muds, non-literal elements might (or might not, depending on the specific case) include such factors as the program architecture, structure, sequence and organization, operational modules, and user interfaces."
Picking just one of the six factors I listed, and claiming that it has been rejected in some cases, is a very poor way of trying to argue your point - particularly when I've repeatedly explained to you that there are no simple answers, that the law isn't the simple thing you seem to want it to be, and that each case would need to be analysed separately based on the abstraction-filtration-comparison test.
Picking just one of the six factors I listed, and claiming that it has been rejected in some cases, is a very poor way of trying to argue your point - particularly when I've repeatedly explained to you that there are no simple answers, that the law isn't the simple thing you seem to want it to be, and that each case would need to be analysed separately based on the abstraction-filtration-comparison test.
Actually, I only picked that one factor to respond to because it's the only one you provided an example for.
KaVir said:
You're still missing the point. Translations are a clear and simple example of derivative works created by non-literal copying. The fact that they completely undermine your claims about non-literal copying makes them a valid point to discuss, not something we should ignore.
If you accept that translations are derivative works, then you must also accept that it's possible to create a derivative work based purely on the copying of non-literal elements.
If you accept that translations are derivative works, then you must also accept that it's possible to create a derivative work based purely on the copying of non-literal elements.
You're also missing the point. When I originally claimed that creating your own, unique game starting from another code base gave you just as much ownership as starting from scratch, I made no mention about copying your supposed non-literal elements. In fact, I made it abundantly clear that one would have to replace or remove all game-specific algorithms and code in order to be truly unique. In that case, there would be no derivation as it applies to copyright law, and you would be in the clear legally speaking. While I, personally, would still maintain some form of credit, it would only be for inspiration - not derivation.
11 Feb, 2008, drrck wrote in the 110th comment:
Darwin said:
In the hypothetical situation you describe, there is no way of telling if the intention was dishonest or not. However, if the end code has the same function as the code it replaced, then it would still be plagiarized. Just because you change how the code was written does not change what it did. The function of the code should be credited to the original author. Simply replacing the code with something you wrote doesn't mean you came up with the idea all on your own.
Then I guess any code that utilizes networking is plagiarizing; after all, they all have the same function of transporting data between two computers.
11 Feb, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 111th comment:
I give up. I and others have said everything that there is to say and this is just going in circles now. :smile:
As for the link, well, I don't think it was necessary to suggest I was delusional just because you didn't notice the rest of the page the first time around. :wink:
As for the link, well, I don't think it was necessary to suggest I was delusional just because you didn't notice the rest of the page the first time around. :wink:
11 Feb, 2008, Darwin wrote in the 112th comment:
drrck said:
You could say that, but I don't think many people would be inclined to agree with you.Then I guess any code that utilizes networking is plagiarizing
drrck said:
after all, they all have the same function of transporting data between two computers.
So does a floppy disk, cd-rom and dvd-rom, among other things. You would have to be a little more specific than just stating they move data between two computers, that definition is too vague.
In order for the aforementioned code to be plagiarized, it would have to be pre-existing in one form and then be used, edited/modified and end up as something "new" but still contain the same functionality. If the original author of the code was not given credit, or permission to use the original code was not given, then there would be issues at hand; copyright violation, intellectual property and plagiarism to name a few possibilities.
At this point, I can't even tell what point you are trying to argue. As David said, this is just going in circles now.
11 Feb, 2008, drrck wrote in the 113th comment:
Darwin said:
So does a floppy disk, cd-rom and dvd-rom, among other things. You would have to be a little more specific than just stating they move data between two computers, that definition is too vague.
The concepts in a MUD are vague as well. Output functions "send data to clients". Input functions "receive data from clients". Command parsers "turn input into understandable instructions". Blah, blah, blah. All these functions can be found in a whole slew of other programs, and they are not copyrightable.
Darwin said:
In order for the aforementioned code to be plagiarized, it would have to be pre-existing in one form and then be used, edited/modified and end up as something "new" but still contain the same functionality. If the original author of the code was not given credit, or permission to use the original code was not given, then there would be issues at hand; copyright violation, intellectual property and plagiarism to name a few possibilities.
"New" does not guarantee "unique", as has been pointed out numerous times by everyone on the thread. Translation is "new", but not "unique". We're talking about unique code that may or may not serve the same purpose as the original code. Even if it does have the same functionality, said functionality would have to be game-specific in order to constitute plagiarization. I explicitly stated that you would have to remove all game-specific material from the new product, however.
11 Feb, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 114th comment:
drrck said:
All these functions can be found in a whole slew of other programs, and they are not copyrightable
Nobody said that the act of sending data to clients was copyrightable… sigh…
11 Feb, 2008, drrck wrote in the 115th comment:
DavidHaley said:
Nobody said that the act of sending data to clients was copyrightable… sigh…
Well, you can't very well plagiarize something that's uncopyrightable. Or, I guess you could in theory, but it would have no legal ramifications as does normal plagiarization.
11 Feb, 2008, Guest wrote in the 116th comment:
drrck said:
The concepts in a MUD are vague as well. Output functions "send data to clients". Input functions "receive data from clients". Command parsers "turn input into understandable instructions". Blah, blah, blah. All these functions can be found in a whole slew of other programs, and they are not copyrightable.
The ideas are not copyrightable. You are quite correct. As we've told you already, you're discussing PATENT issues. The idea itself is more or less open season without that.
Once you get to the expression of the idea, then you're dealing with copyright. Yes, send_to_char() sends text to a person. But it's how that's accomplished in the written code that counts.
Personally I've reached the conclusion that you're being deliberately obtuse in your responses. I haven't yet figured out why though.
11 Feb, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 117th comment:
As I said before, He refuses to listen and continues to stake his claim that he is right, and can't be wrong. So don't continue the futile attempt to sway the close-minded.
11 Feb, 2008, kiasyn wrote in the 118th comment:
We all live in a yellow submarine! *can contribute too!*
11 Feb, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 119th comment:
Hey – run-on songs!
Near the town, where I was born…
Near the town, where I was born…
11 Feb, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 120th comment:
drrck said:
I suppose the vast majority of literature is infringing on previous works' copyrights then, if structure is copyrightable.
You're trying to generalise again. I've explained before, the law is not that simple - the rules for judging nonliteral elements of software are not the same as for other types of literature. See Lotus vs. Paperback Software: http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/student...
"In musical, dramatic, motion picture works, and works of literature, nonliteral elements that are copyrightable have sometimes been described as the "total concept and feel" of a work. In this case, however, Judge Keeton said that he did not find the "look and feel" concept, standing alone, to be "significantly helpful in distinguishing between the nonliteral elements of a computer program that are copyrightable and those that are not."
Indeed it was the differences between software and more traditional types of literature that led to the creation of the abstraction-filtration-comparison test.
drrck said:
Actually, I only picked that one factor to respond to because it's the only one you provided an example for.
No, I listed six - you even listed them yourself in an earlier reponse. I said "Within the context of muds, non-literal elements might (or might not, depending on the specific case) include such factors as the program architecture, structure, sequence and organization, operational modules, and user interfaces."
drrck said:
When I originally claimed that creating your own, unique game starting from another code base gave you just as much ownership as starting from scratch, I made no mention about copying your supposed non-literal elements. In fact, I made it abundantly clear that one would have to replace or remove all game-specific algorithms and code in order to be truly unique. In that case, there would be no derivation as it applies to copyright law, and you would be in the clear legally speaking.
And as I've already explained to you, and backed up with verifiable sources, simply replacing the literal code is not enough to be "in the clear legally speaking". To once again quote the legal article I posted earlier, "Even if you completely replace the program with new code, nonliteral elements also protected by the original program’s copyright are likely to remain and infringe – elements like the overall program structure or architecture and data structures that are not dictated by external or efficiency considerations. Although there is no case law on this point, it would seem that the only way to break the chain of infringing works is by some extraordinary act, such as a clean room implementation"
drrck said:
The concepts in a MUD are vague as well. Output functions "send data to clients". Input functions "receive data from clients". Command parsers "turn input into understandable instructions". Blah, blah, blah. All these functions can be found in a whole slew of other programs, and they are not copyrightable.
I already explained that in the article I quoted about how the abstraction-filtration-comparison test works - if "The element’s expression is a conventional way of writing something in the particular programming language or machine running the program" then it is filtered out of consideration. It is only after the filtration is complete that the remaining non-literal elements are considered - and there are many such elements within a mud.
drrck said:
"New" does not guarantee "unique", as has been pointed out numerous times by everyone on the thread. Translation is "new", but not "unique". We're talking about unique code that may or may not serve the same purpose as the original code.
The term "unique" has no meaning under copyright law, while a "new version" can refer to any derivative work - including translations and fan fiction, neither of which necessarily involve the copying of literal elements.
Random Picks
Basically, I'm seeing two predominant members of the MUD Community agreeing on something they normally NEVER agree upon, legal issues. And I'm seeing another major player, but not so predominant (yet) member of the community, agreeing with the two others. Something never before seen in this community to my knowledge. And some new person, discounting everyone's quoted legal information and links to site, (which it seems obvious this fourth person hasn't actually looked at) because they don't apply to the rhetorical question posed. Did I Um.. Get that all right?