51–60 of 138 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is impossible.
Mind elaborating why? I'm not versed in maze generation, but I am a software dev, and reinventing an existing algorithm does happen. It might be very unlikely in this case, but I'd just like to know why.
Having the maze verts in the same positions is possible and not too unlikely. Having the same walls is astronomically unlikely. Even if you had exactly the same algorithm (possible, but unlikely) and the implementations used the random values in exactly the same order, you'd also need exactly the same random seed. There are a lot of possibilities for that seed.
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?
A number of people have attempted to claim copyright on the output of programs. One of the most infamous examples is how Wolfram claims copyright over the output of Wolfram Alpha. http://yro-beta.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/2055221/how-wolf...
The program itself is almost certainly copyrightable, but what about its output?
These mazes feel like a similar idea to me - he even mentioned that this particular one is generated by a "fibonacci spiral", so there is likely a compact mathematical description of its vertices, and a PRNG (further thought experiment: what if the "randomness" was generated by a true RNG?) along with its seed that was used to determine where the lines appeared. It's an artistic work, but the majority of the "work" was done by an algorithm - he didn't manually draw all the lines.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mind elaborating why? I'm not versed in maze generation, but I am a software dev, and reinventing an existing algorithm does happen. It might be very unlikely in this case, but I'd just like to know why.
With maze generation, you need some way of deciding which subset of the possible walls you're going to keep. Usually you rely on some random or pseudorandom numbers to feed into the algorithm or use internally. Having the maze verts in the same positions is possible and not too unlikely. Having the same walls is astronomically unlikely. Even if you had exactly the same algorithm (possible, but unlikely) and the imple…
I've seen a lot of code that either forgot to srand(), or misused it in some way so the output was pretty determinate. There are also a limited number of PRNGs in use, and they're most definitely not understood well by the majority of programmers; the crypto community knows this quite well. A collision may not be so unlikely after all.
(Try Googling "41, 18467, 6334" for example. "41184676334" also brings up some interesting results.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That'd be a fair comparison if Powerpoint generated powerpoint shows for you without any work on your part.
If you look closely, the path isn't exactly the same. There was some work involved. Perhaps they even attempted to re-implemented the algorithm? Are algorithms copyrightable?
Normally, though, algorithms are not copyrightable. Though Books about algorithms are.
In this case, the guy published a book containing a maze, so reproduction of the maze should fall under copyright.
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.
Then there is the choice of grid design (identical), entry and exit holes (identical).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A number of people have attempted to claim copyright on the output of programs. One of the most infamous examples is how Wolfram claims copyright over the output of Wolfram Alpha. http://yro-beta.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/2055221/how-wolf...
This is interesting because a similar thought experiment that immediately occurred to me would be to consider a program that calculates digits of pi, sqrt(2), or some other transcendental number, given some user input --- basically, a calculator. The program itself is almost certainly copyrightable, but what about its output? These mazes feel like a similar idea to me - he even mentioned that this particular one is g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sti…
If someone "steals" your identity, it isn't really theft sure. Really, you both have a pointer to that identity. The problem, which makes it a good idea for it to be illegal, is that you both have a pointer to the EXACT SAME identity. Thus, any destructive(or benevolent) changes they make affect your identity as well.
Contrast this with most forms of "copyright theft", where the original owner still has the original AND any changes you make to your copy have no effect on the original.