Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This maze looks familiar

krazydad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 138 posts

Re: This maze looks familiar

#41

Post by hyperpape »

jordigh wrote: post #33
jfoutz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily, neither the essay nor anyone else in this thread are talking about theft.

From TFA: > If you’re gonna steal a maze, you might want to try stealing from maze book #47, and do a horizontal swap on it before you rotate it 90 degrees.

Jiminy cricket. Copyright violation isn't theft, but saying you "stole" a maze isn't a literal accusation of theft either.

"Good artists copy; great artists steal." -- someone a long time ago "UMMMMM, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THEFT!" --you.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#42

Post by gegenschall »

mkesper wrote: post #19
chton wrote: post #9

Hypothetical question: is it possible that they did not copy it? The author here indicates that the original maze was generated by software, maybe Kraft stumbled upon the same algorithm, or a close variation of it (considering the minor differences between the two)? Obviously, this is very out-of-left-field and I don't believe it either, but it's not impossible that Kraft didn't plagiarise anything.

Under some jurisdictions (eg Germany), I'm not sure whether the output of a program is copyrightable at all. Your software, yes, but probably not the output.

That's just too easy and doesn't make sense.

OTOH one could argue that the maze itself does not fall under the scope of the Urheberrechtsgesetz because its threshold of originality is too low (no offense, it is after all auto-generated). But I'm no lawyer and this is just a spooky idea.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#43

Post by rtkwe »

phy6 wrote: post #37
cloverich wrote: post #34

I see literally thousands of mazes generated on the site, and (unless I"m mistaken) they are all simply generated output from a computer program. Its cool, but is it even possible to copyright something like this?

Does Microsoft own my powerpoints?

That'd be a fair comparison if Powerpoint generated powerpoint shows for you without any work on your part.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#44

Post by wlievens »

runholm wrote: post #26
mkesper wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under some jurisdictions (eg Germany), I'm not sure whether the output of a program is copyrightable at all. Your software, yes, but probably not the output.

That can't possibly be that simple. Allmost all movies, songs, images and programs made today are outputs from programs.

I guess he means the output of a program that has no creative input (other than writing the program itself).

I'd argue that if I wrote a program to generate a novel, that novel should be copyrightable.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#45

Post by DanielStraight »

jordigh wrote: post #25

Sure, copyright infringement, plagiarism, but not theft! Copying is not theft! We need to hear this more often. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU7axyrHWDQ

We really don't. I hope you don't sincerely believe your fellow HNers are stupid enough to think that copying an artistic artifact somehow removes it from the possession of the original creator. We aren't and we don't. Which means this is just a matter of word choice. I can't think of much I'm less interested in reading than "You used this word in a way I don't agree with."

Besides, this usage of "theft" is not dissimilar from the already well established usage of "stole" as in "he stole my idea." If an idea can be stolen, it can certainly be theft to take the product of an idea, at least colloquially.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#46

Post by jordigh »

hyperpape wrote: post #41
jordigh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From TFA: > If you’re gonna steal a maze, you might want to try stealing from maze book #47, and do a horizontal swap on it before you rotate it 90 degrees.

Jiminy cricket. Copyright violation isn't theft, but saying you "stole" a maze isn't a literal accusation of theft either. "Good artists copy; great artists steal." -- someone a long time ago "UMMMMM, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THEFT!" --you.

It is important to repeat "copying is not theft" because it's at the heart of the arguments that e.g. the MPAA make to the public in order to convince them of the evils of copyright infringement ("you wouldn't steal a car," etc). TFA seems to be trying to appeal to the evil of Kraft's deeds by suggesting that something has been stolen from him.

It seems clear to me that nothing of the sort of theft has happened, and at least some people would instead be flattered to have their work reproduced large scale instead of slinging accusations of theft. If it were me, I would use this to promote the value of my own work. Maybe I would try to talk to someone at Kraft before firing the lawyer cannons, perhaps just work out a deal where they give me some sort of recognition. Even recognising the copyright infringement, it seems to be on such small scale (one maze out of hundreds?) that it might be difficult to argue for damages incurred.

This person isn't flattered, but the language of "theft" indicates a graver damage than what actually has happened.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#47

Post by cmpb »

rtkwe wrote: post #43
phy6 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Microsoft own my powerpoints?

That'd be a fair comparison if Powerpoint generated powerpoint shows for you without any work on your part.

Well now that's like saying the generator generated mazes without any work on his part.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#48

Post by jordigh »

DanielStraight wrote: post #45
jordigh wrote: post #25

Sure, copyright infringement, plagiarism, but not theft! Copying is not theft! We need to hear this more often. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU7axyrHWDQ

We really don't. I hope you don't sincerely believe your fellow HNers are stupid enough to think that copying an artistic artifact somehow removes it from the possession of the original creator. We aren't and we don't. Which means this is just a matter of word choice. I can't think of much I'm less interested in reading than "You used this word in a way I don't agree with." Besides, this usage of "theft" is not dissi…

Of course it's a common usage, but that alone shouldn't make it acceptable usage. Lots of disparaging language is common usage. When you use a word with a certain intent, it's the usage of that word with that specific intent that should be questioned.

I think we should all be grownup enough to recognise that ideas can't really be stolen either. We also recognise the value of copying ideas. If we recognise these things, then we should use corresponding language to reflect our intent.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#49

Post by chrisbennet »

jordigh wrote: post #46
hyperpape wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jiminy cricket. Copyright violation isn't theft, but saying you "stole" a maze isn't a literal accusation of theft either. "Good artists copy; great artists steal." -- someone a long time ago "UMMMMM, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THEFT!" --you.

It is important to repeat "copying is not theft" because it's at the heart of the arguments that e.g. the MPAA make to the public in order to convince them of the evils of copyright infringement ("you wouldn't steal a car," etc). TFA seems to be trying to appeal to the evil of Kraft's deeds by suggesting that something has been stolen from him. It seems clear to me that nothing of the sort of theft has happened, and…

Is it not "theft" because that word is pejorative and another word should be used?

Is it because it isn't taking something without permission?

Is it because intellectual property isn't property in some sense?

Is it because the original isn't really "owned"?

Is it be because the owner still has the original?

Given similar reasoning, "identify theft" isn't really theft. After all, if someone "stole" my identity I'd still have the original.

Re: This maze looks familiar

#50

Post by mcherm »

Notice how he pointed out that it is copied in clear violation of copyright law. Then he did NOT follow this up with a cease-and-desist letter, or a threat of legal action. Classy.

Now I hope that Craft is classy in return, by contacting him and negotiating in good faith a reasonable fee for the use of the maze.

Post reply on HN