Copyrighting facts (was: Re: Can you alter the MIT license?)

[Seth David Schoen]

Bruce Perens writes:

> From: Justin Wells <jread at semiotek.com>
> > How far can you go with this notion that you cannot copyright a fact? Can you
> > copyright the arrangement of chess men on a chess board?
> 
> The arrangement of chess pieces is not the same sort of concrete fact as
> "Woodhaven Rd. runs between these two points".

The strange paradox of copyright is that facts which result from creative
intellectual effort are nonetheless facts.

For example, the last character of the main text of Douglas Hofstadter's
_Godel, Escher, Bach_ is an "r".  The second character of (l'havdil)
Microsoft Word 97 is a "Z".  These are objective facts.  In the same vein,
I could look up the six hundred twenty-sixth note of Andrew Lloyd Webber's
_Requiem_ (assuming a standard ordering of the instrumental voices within
a work and the notes within an instrumental line).  The identity of that
note would also be an objective fact.

These particular facts are not copyrightable (because of fair use), but
the co-ordinated public mention of a sufficiently large number of them
would still be a copyright violation.

E.g.

The first character of _Neuromancer_ is a "T".
The second character of _Neuromancer_ is an "h".
The third character of _Neuromancer_ is an "e".
The fourth character of _Neuromancer_ is a space.
The fifth character of _Neuromancer_ is an "s".
The sixth character of _Neuromancer_ is a "k".
[...]

If I continued this sequence for a little while longer, I would be guilty
of a copyright violation.

How is that sequence of objective facts essentially different from the
following sequence of objective facts?

The elevation, in feet, of Alameda, California, is 30.
The elevation, in feet, of Berkeley, California, is 150.
The elevation, in feet, of Cupertino, California, is 236.
The elevation, in feet, of Daly City, California, is 300.
The elevation, in feet, of Emeryville, California, is 15.
The elevation, in feet, of Fremont, California, is 53.
[...]

Presumably, the information contained in one is the result of organized
human creative effort, where the other is not.  (It _is_ the result of
human effort, in the form of the USGS GNIS.)

So, can I copyright the following?

1aef 9a8e 707e 8274 391d 6de4 3c76 da65
bd62 d2bc 4635 c915 141b 3a33 2fc2 7baa
7be7 7f3d 0cb5 f460 5adb d52d 1231 274e
2f02 a75e 7cc8 faa5 f2fe ad36 110b ba02
fe23 17eb e15f 484a 776d 6a3a 08a1 686f
a329 9593 58a0 54b4 6f48 75ea bc61 bd3e
90a2 6d76 03f5 a7ab b45e 3d4b 8b6a 8480
964b 614a 0c38 68c2 718b 53ce a39d 89f9
7109 66ed 6000 591e 6006 5e26 9b4b 7143
950a 2272 531d a0cd ccc9 9797 3670 7828

Do you need to know what it is first to say whether I can copyright it?

I don't think it's possible to consider the copyright system reasonable,
logical, intuitive, or founded on readily comprehensible rules.  Certainly
the idea that "you can't copyright facts" won't help someone who desires
to report the fact that the text of Microsoft Word is... (well, that
person is not myself).

-- 
Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>  | And do not say, I will study when I
     http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/    | have leisure; for perhaps you will
     http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF)    | not have leisure.  -- Pirke Avot 2:5