91–100 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because there's a law specifically about live musical performances: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html
That law is about fixing the sounds themselves, which is specifically what andromeduck is proposing not to do. It's conceivable that andromeduck's distinction won't stand up in law, but you haven't addressed it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Melodies are less constrained than that, timing between notes (which includes 0) note pitch and duration are all open. Which is why musical notation is really complex. Further they are not patents two people can in theory both have copyright on the same melody.
I wanted you to look at actual case law - the minimal amount of a "melody" that barred others from reusing it. Then to compare the amount of information (or constraint) in that melody, with the case at hand. If you need a hint, see arguments e.g. here - http://gizmodo.com/5962375/is-it-possible-to-run-out-of-new-... and elsewhere. While you say that timing between notes and note pitch and duration are all open, in fa…
I can also make a clif notes version of Harry Potter describing what happened in detail. That's not what copywrite protects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why was this downvoted? I found it to be a pretty interesting perspective, although I do think the equation of letters in a sentence to moves in a chess game is pretty weak. Moves made in a chess game are events that factually happened in the past - copyrighting them would be akin to copyrighting a certain historical event, such that only a copyright holder is given privilege to state information about it. Letters, w…
It's a historical fact that "primitivesuave" wrote down the sequence of letters "Why was this downvoted? I found it to be a pretty interesting perspective...", but if I published it, I'd still be violating your copyright. What's the difference between that and a chess game (which takes significantly more intellectual effort than a messageboard comment)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's not the broadcast. This is comparable to newspapers not being allowed to report on goals in a soccer match or have any kind of live coverage (but still not showing the broadcast).
Except the moves in a chess game are deliberately chosen in a process involving nothing but intellect and creativity. Scoring goals in a soccer match is something the players try to influence but it's ultimately outside of their control. I think publishing goals in soccer are more akin to publishing vague information like "Black lost his bishop on turn 4" but not the specific sequence of moves.
If that were the case, they wouldn't be allowed to repeat moves played by others either...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wanted you to look at actual case law - the minimal amount of a "melody" that barred others from reusing it. Then to compare the amount of information (or constraint) in that melody, with the case at hand. If you need a hint, see arguments e.g. here - http://gizmodo.com/5962375/is-it-possible-to-run-out-of-new-... and elsewhere. While you say that timing between notes and note pitch and duration are all open, in fa…
In terms of choices, high level play also has a tiny fraction of the number of choices in practice. However, this has nothing to do with why it's protected or not. I can also make a clif notes version of Harry Potter describing what happened in detail. That's not what copywrite protects.
everyone can agree that summarizing a game is fine. We can also all agree that Chess games shouldn't be subject to copyright!
So, I'm not disagreeing with you or anyone.
As a very narrow technical issue, I would like to have a comparison between the number of choices (which key to play in; first note, its length; second note, its length; third note, its length; fourth note, its length) that goes into a melody that has been deemded legally protected, and a chess game.
Here is a protected riff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nLCa0YG1ZI&t=57s
Now please focus on just the first 8 notes, after picking a "starting note". The number of choices for where the melody goes, in the key that is in, is rather constrained: what has more creativity, 8-9 of those notes, or an entire chess game?
An entire chess game may well have more creative choices in it. After all, full-length chess games are quite rarely repeated! (independently). There are a rather large number of variations.
As further evidence, consider the term "novelty" which is a single choice at a particular move, which has never been played before (is a new variation/line.) The term "a novelty" in chess is quite specific and also is evidence that even when you are still in the opening, Chess people consider move choices to be quite creative.
All this might seem to imply that I am disagreeing wiht you or others: I'M NOT. Chess games shoudl NOT be copyrighted.
But as a very highly technical point of law, they contain more creative choices or entropy than other creative works that are protected.
Please be more careful in your analysis.
stats.com charges like $80k per season per sport or something like that for access to their live game data api.
world chess should take this all the way, airing the moves for free is undercutting their business model. seems like it shouldn't be legal considering chess is a sport.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No idea why you are being downvoted. Regardless of whether it's actually enforceable, this threat is definitely aired during every NFL game. MLB too: "This copyrighted telecast is presented by authority of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. It may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated without express written consent."
Sorry, I turned on my TV 1 minute after that was displayed. This issue is called "contract formation", and any HN reader who's shipped licensed software or had a website with terms of service should be aware that showing something that a user may or may not have seen is the worst possible way to try to form a contract. That's why creating an account on almost all websites has a checkbox that the user has to check, wi…
What if the note is also in the actual contract that has my signature? Is the content of such contracts limited in any way?
I mean – it must be. I can easily get any number of people to sign contracts that include a right for me to their firstborn child.
Whatever legal doctrine courts would use to strike down such a provision should also apply to, for example, people waving their right to sue, to freely discuss the content of broadcasts, to rate the product/service being purchased etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be curious to know why they wouldn't hold up—did your professor give a reason or mention any particular cases that led him/her to reach this conclusion? In my experience (lawyer in Palo Alto for 7 years), parties can agree by contract to do or not do many many things. Even provisions that limit legal recourse, like the much-decried mandatory arbitration clauses [1] have held up all the way to the US Supreme Court…
"parties can agree", but I turned on my TV after the legalese was broadcast. The average website or software shrinkwrap has a lot better contract formation than that.
And "there are no limits to the content of contracts people freely enter" is obviously an untenable position – we'd all agree that a provision giving me your kidneys, hidden somewhere deep in the ToS is unenforceable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but if choosing your moves is a creative task, then why wouldn't the moves be jointly copyrighted by the two players? What's the difference between: 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6?? 4. Qxf7# and: fmt: .string "Hello World!\n" .balign 4 .global main main: stp x29, x30, [sp, -16]! mov x29, sp adrp x0, fmt add x0, x0, :lo12:fmt bl printf ldp x29, x30, [sp], 16 ret if both are the result of a creative process?
Events that happens are facts, creative representation of facts is copywritable but not mechanical translations. Thus you can't get a copywrite on the S&P's closing value, but you can on a story about it. Further, a program has multiple possible representations, you can copywrite the code in one of them, but not gain a separate one for the compiled code. PS: There are also many ways to generate code that don't create…
But even if there's a smart legal doctrine defining the difference between a chess game and two musicians writing a score, lets not pretend that such legal doctrines aren't created to arrive at the result that seems right. Not that there's anything wrong with that – look no further than the "smart contracts" fiasco to see the folly of trying to define rules in a "completely objective" framework.
PS: "copyright", not "copywrite".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you can't copy facts, period. You can copyright facts that have been 'fixed in a tangible medium of expression' as long as there's some minimal element of creativity. Sheet music is copyrightable because the notes have been "fixed" onto a piece of paper. A recording of a band is copyrightable because the music has been "fixed" in the record, tape, CD, or other file. You can copyright a specific description of a c…
So I could still go to a concert and publish the notes, pitches and timings of the sounds I heard because those are just facts not fixed to a medium like the chess moves here?