RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 12 Aug 2002 at 11:01, Richard Hartman wrote:

From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
Date sent:      	Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:01:22 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Exactly, neither the facts nor the formatting
> can be copyright (like the phone book).  But the
> _work_ put into creating that listing of information
> is still of value in and of itself.  That is to say,
> if you wanted to publish a rival phone book you would
> have to compile your own listing & not just run off
> copies of the latest Pac Bell book, right?

Why not? THe phonebook isn't copyrighted, at least the white pages, yellow 
pages contain advertising which is. The amount of work is not relevant to 
whether something is copyrightable or not despite the value.. That's the basis 
of Feist. 

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 7:09 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
> 
> 
> On 8 Aug 2002 at 13:42, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
> To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
> discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
> Date sent:      	Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:42:14 -0700 
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > Although the output of their engine can not be 
> > copyright (by my criteria), it _does_ represent
> > the work of their tool.  It is not the output
> > per se that (I believe) they have the right to
> > control ... but the use of their tool (if you
> > can follow that distinction).  It is work that
> > was performed using _their_ resources and any
> > use made of the result that did not conform to
> > their requirements would be a "theft of services"
> 
> OK well let's look at it differently...they put this tool out there that 
> anybody can access...and then they put a thousand lines about what you can't do
> with it...who reads it? Nobody? Would the reasonable man on the street expect
> anybody to? Probably not? The legal community does recognize that fine print is
> not a good thing in a contract but what's the contract? ShrinkWrap at best?
> What's the license? NONE. Licenses are negociated items so that the parties
> understand what the conditions are. Not a boiler plate of fine print.
> 
> Furthermore, I would contend that the FACTS themselves cannot be copyrighted
> 
> and neither can the formatting.  There is nothing creative about a
> mechanical 
> formatting program and as such it is not copyrightable. FOr pragmatic
> reasons 
> alone. ...
> 
> 
> > IMO.
> > 
> > -- 
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> > 
> > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas Olsson [mailto:dvd-discuss@armware.dk]
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 11:02 AM
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
> > > 
> > > 
> > > In article 
> > > <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC0123972D@mail.onetouch.com>,
> > > Richard Hartman <URL:mailto:hartman@onetouch.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > > I do not see how the output of a search engine could
> > > > > > possibly qualify as "artistic expression".
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > 
> > > > > But if I copied their results only, and served them up in a 
> > > > > style I had
> > > > > created, I'm pretty sure they would still view that as 
> > > some kind of
> > > > > infringement.
> > > > 
> > > > I would suggest something along the lines of "theft
> > > > of services".  Stealing someone elses work and presenting 
> > > > it as your own.
> > > > After all, the search engine itself _is_ 
> > > > something they created, and they can control how it is used.
> > > 
> > > They have the right to ban anyone they want (and they do), if 
> > > they don't
> > > like what I'm doing. I can then go through proxies, which 
> > > they can then ban,
> > > etc. etc. until one of us gives up.
> > > 
> > > Google is probably a poor example, since most of their 
> > > decisions have been
> > > sensible IMO. Their TOS does not mention their alledged 
> > > rights, only that
> > > notice at the bottom of the pages.
> > > 
> > > So I have visited AltaVista against my better judgement, and 
> > > they have the
> > > following:
> > > 
> > > "The Services are protected by U.S. and international 
> > > copyright, patent,
> > > trademarks laws and other intellectual property laws - for 
> > > more information
> > > about this, please click here."
> > > 
> > > "You may make a single copy of the individual screens you see 
> > > when you use
> > > the Services, but only for your personal use. You cannot distribute or
> > > transfer the copies to others in exchange for money or other 
> > > consideration.
> > > You may not - and agree not to - modify, reformat, copy, display,
> > > distribute, transmit, publish, license, create derivative  works from,
> > > transfer or sell any information, products or services 
> > > obtained from the 
> > > Services, except as set forth below. This means that you may 
> > > not mirror the
> > > home page or results pages of the Site or any AltaVista Site 
> > > on your own Web
> > > site or Web page."
> > > 
> > > This is much more like the nonsense I've come to expect. They 
> > > quite clearly
> > > think they own every right known to man, also on the results.
> > > 
> > > The only question is - are they correct?
> > > 
> > > > [snip]
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Thomas
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 	9876543210  Magic tab-o-meter.		http://www.armware.dk/
> > >          ^
> > >      The opinions expressed herein may not reflect official 
> > > RIAA policy.
> > > 
>