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

[Angelo Schneider]

Hi Seth,

very good explanaition!

Angelo

Seth David Schoen wrote:
> 
> 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

If you are the author. You have the copyright on that.
Why? 
You could claim this as art!

How would you proofe that its art?
Well if someone copies it you have the context
in which he copied it. If he tried to sell this great art,
than it is, even if noone else recognizes it that way.

Furthr more:
Your code above is yust a code.
That means how you code your informatin or art is not important for
the fact that it is copyrighted.

Even if I crypt an excerpt of Bach I would violate propably some
rights. Ok, better: I encrypt a song of Sting (he still lives),
noone would understnd the coding. But it was his work, so I violate 
his rights.

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

No, it must be (not even intellectual) work, done by a human or
initiated by
a human. However some works are to trivial (see the/YOUR law for those 
exceptions).

> 
> 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

Best Regards, 
	Angelo

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Angelo Schneider           OOAD/UML           Angelo.Schneider at xcc.de
Putlitzstr. 24         Patterns/FrameWorks       Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe             C++/JAVA             Fax: +49 721 9812467