Reminds me of Roger Penrose and toilet paper plagiarism: http://web.archive.org/web/20050312084035/http://www.parasco...
How did that case end?
This maze looks familiar
61–70 of 138 posts
Re: This maze looks familiar
#62I 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?
Not the PowerPoint, but likely the copyright over parts of it. Presentations may be self-running, embed fonts, contain graphics, or simply use templates whose copyright Microsoft owns.
Re: This maze looks familiar
#63Earlier 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…
Thanks for the explanation. what would the impact be if they had a different seed, would the maze be really drastically different? Or could it look more like the 2 mazes in the original post, with only a few walls different and mostly identical?
Re: This maze looks familiar
#64Hypothetical 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.
Highly unlikely. The grid design contains about 900 edges which can be set or clear. Their maze differs by 7 edges. Here's a statistics problem for you: What is the likelihood of generating a random 900 bit binary number that differs from another random 900 bit binary number by only 7 bits? Then there is the choice of grid design (identical), entry and exit holes (identical).
That's not a valid comparison for generated mazes, is it? Unless the algorithm was really just choosing randomly, some edges are far more likely to occur than others.
Re: This maze looks familiar
#65Notice how they removed a couple of walls and made it 5x easier than the original.
I think they actually added a wall and made it harder.
Re: This maze looks familiar
#66Earlier 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.
ah gotcha. did a ctrl-F for theft and stole, forgot to try the present tense.
Re: This maze looks familiar
#67Notice how they removed a couple of walls and made it 5x easier than the original.
I'm not sure which you mean by "original", but in the KrazyDad version you can go in a nearly straight line from the start point to the end point, but in the Kraft version, you have to take a spiral path through more than 360 degrees around the circle. Even if they started with the KrazyDad version, that's a pretty interesting change.
Re: This maze looks familiar
#68Re: This maze looks familiar
#69Earlier 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…
Honestly: I don't think the term "identity theft" is a good one. It's not clear at all what exactly that even means unless people have had it explained to them; and even then it's pretty vague and encompasses lots of things.
Identify theft is a kind of fraud or perhaps libel, but it's certainly not conventional theft.
Nevertheless, the term has taken on a life of its own, and that's just the way language works. The problem arises when people say inane things like "you wouldn't steal a car, would you?". That analogy is sort of like saying you shouldn't go on strike, after all, you wouldn't want somebody to strike you, right?
So, is it theft? Well, from a linguistic perspective: it's called whatever it's called. But it's simply deceptive to pretend that merely because the same word is used that the meaning must be equivalent too. It's particularly unfortunately that the manipulation of language is probably intentionally deceptive; the notion of intellectual property didn't arise amongst the average English speaker, but amongst a special interest group that stands to gain by causing this particular confusion.
Re: This maze looks familiar
#70Reminds me of Roger Penrose and toilet paper plagiarism: http://web.archive.org/web/20050312084035/http://www.parasco...
This deserves a submission. > "So often we read of very large companies riding rough-shod over small businesses or individuals," said David Bradley, director of Pentaplex. "But when it comes to the population of Great Britain being invited by a multi-national to wipe their bottoms on what appears to be the work of a Knight of the Realm without his permission, then a last stand must be made."
[This is Jim Bumgardner - author of the maze that Kraft copied]. Amusingly, this comes full circle. One of the puzzle varieties on my site is based on Penrose tilings.
http://krazydad.com/slitherlink/sfiles/sl_penrose_b001.pdf
Years ago, I sought (and received) permission from Penrose to use his tiling on these puzzles.