RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 7 Aug 2002 at 2:14, Thomas Olsson wrote:

To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
From:           	Thomas Olsson <dvd-discuss@armware.dk>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
Date sent:      	Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:14:30 +0200
Organization:   	ARMWARE
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> In article <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC0123971C@mail.onetouch.com>,
> Richard Hartman <URL:mailto:hartman@onetouch.com> wrote:
> > Interesting question.  I think there is a functional/expressive difference
> > here.  The output of the compilers is generated from input created by a person
> > especially  to be converted by the compiler.
> 
> So the output "inherits" the rights attached to the input, if the process
> can be viewed as a conversion? Interesting.
> 
> > The output of a search
> > engine is the result of a mechanistic process -- nothing is really
> > _generated_ by this, it is _collected_ and presented.  I would say that the
> > results of Google searches would not be copyrightable.
> 
> It shouldn't be, but Google would disagree with you. They have put "© 2002
> Google" at the bottom of each and every result page. In effect, they claim
> copyright on all possible permutations of output, even the ones that have
> never been published. I'm pretty sure the "2002" increments automatically
> when appropriate, so it is also eternal.
> 
> Something is wrong with this. Of course the notice itself doesn't mean
> anything, it just shows what they believe their rights are.

I would think Feist applies here. Google search is the mere mechanical 
complilation of data. If PEOPLE can't get copyright for a phone book then why 
should a computer get copyright for collecting information.

> 
> > Otoh, if the courts had been led down this line of reasoning it should also
> > follow that Google searches could not be held as _violating_ copyright, and
> > yet it has (requiring Google to remove certain URLs from the results of
> > certain searches).  
> > 
> > I would hope that this ruling was merely a result of a poor understanding of
> > the process and not how copyright law would function if properly informed.
> 
> Maybe their claim of copyright is another way of saying "this is artistic
> expression", rather than just a list of results from an index. This, in turn,
> might be why they can also infringe on the rights of others with it.
> 
> I am fascinated by the idea that you can publish and copyright billions
> of permutations of output, just by writing a script. I have already got
> a suitable script that demonstrates the stupidity of that, but I need more
> information about the laws to perfect it.

Look at the serialist movement in music in the 20th century. Whole composers 
writings would lose copyright protection...not that it would promote progress 
in my opinion. 

> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > [snip]
> 
> Regards,
> Thomas
> 
> -- 
>  9876543210  Magic tab-o-meter.		http://www.armware.dk/
>          ^
>      The opinions expressed herein may not reflect official RIAA policy.
>