Random Startup Generator

It shows that idea is just the top cream layer, and without the cake made with human hard work and sacrifices, its nothing special.

A simple improvement: add a team bios section in the bottom with three images grabbed randomly from google image search results "startup hipster" and random text along the lines of "...coded on commodore at 6, graduated MIT, left Google to disrupt...".

"Cloudulate" sounds plausible.

Perhaps "Cloudulation" is what happens at the end of a successful project...

> I think you're confused by my original statement.

No, not confused in the slightest.

> By "came up with the exact same language by chance", I mean "came up with the exact same language without reference to idea generator," i.e. your copy of the text was independently created.

Did you actually read my post? My "Birthday song" example shows that a randomly generated sequence of notes still constitutes a copyright violation.

> Under U.S. law, there must be actual copying in order to infringe upon copyright.

Yes, but you're confused about the meaning of "actual copying". Any method that substantially reproduces the original constitutes actual copying.

> That doesn't mean you can get around the Happy Birthday copyright[2] by simply randomly generating six note sequences until you get the one you want.

That is absolutely false, and I am shocked that you would post this nonsense in a public forum. The result is the only issue -- if it's a copy of a protected work, no one asks how the copy was generated.

> On the other hand, let's say you somehow never heard the Happy Birthday song and somehow just came up with them on their own. That's fine -- no copying, no infringement.

Also false, as much case law demonstrates. The difference in the case of simultaneous invention is the severity of the punishment, not the judgment that it's a violation.

Your reference to substantial similarity isn't relevant to what we're talking about. Substantial similarity addresses the issue of how alike two works are, not how a work was copied. Two works that are sufficiently different are judged not to be in conflict with respect to copyright issues. The method of copying is not a factor.

> There's actually a good argument that the song is no longer copyrighted.

Yes, and IMHO it shouldn't be copyrighted. It's a classic example of a perversion in copyright law.

> Yes, but you're confused about the meaning of "actual copying". Any method that substantially reproduces the original constitutes actual copying.

Nope, you're flat out wrong and I'll stake my bar license on it. Actual copying requires that "the defendant actually used the plaintiff’s work in order to create his or her own work."[1] Courts typically require proof of "access to the copyrighted work" in addition to substantial similarity between the results.[2] Substantial similarity can help constitute circumstantial evidence of copying but does not indicate infringement in and of itself.[3]

---

>> That doesn't mean you can get around the Happy Birthday copyright[2] by simply randomly generating six note sequences until you get the one you want.

> That is absolutely false, and I am shocked that you would post this nonsense in a public forum. The result is the only issue -- if it's a copy of a protected work, no one asks how the copy was generated.

Read my original quote again. I think you missed the "doesn't" in my statement. We're in agreement that randomly generating content until it resembles a copyrighted work will get you in trouble, albeit for different reasons.

---

>> On the other hand, let's say you somehow never heard the Happy Birthday song and somehow just came up with them on their own. That's fine -- no copying, no infringement.

> Also false, as much case law demonstrates. The difference in the case of simultaneous invention is the severity of the punishment, not the judgment that it's a violation.

Can you point out a single case where that's true? There's at least one appellate level case saying the opposite (albeit with 3 notes, not 6):

'''[D]efendant submitted affidavits by experts analyzing the two compositions and showing that the only similarity between them is a recurring three note sequence found also in the works of Johann Sebastian Bach. The evidence presented clearly does not raise a question of fact as to whether the two compositions were so strikingly similar as to preclude the possibility of independent creation.'''[4]

You may be confusing patent law with copyright. Under patent law, independent invention is no defense (except as to damages). But copyright law != patent law (unfortunately IMHO -- some semblance of an independent invention requirement would make patent trolling less profitable).

---

Citations:

[1] http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications...

[2] See, e.g., Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F. 2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 1977), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1674068343222286....

[3] See, e.g., Donald v. Zack Meyer's TV Sales and Service, 426 F. 2d 1027, (5th Cir. 1970), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1791074878897978..., and Orgel v. Clark Boardman Co., 301 F. 2d 119 (2d Cir. 1962), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9525184415609798....

[4] Ferguson v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 584 F. 2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 1978), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1791074878897978...