Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges

[Thomas Olsson <dvd-discuss(at)armware.dk>]

In article <FAEDD1DF-AB01-11D6-88ED-003065F24232@ponymail.com>, Jeremy Erwin
<URL:mailto:jerwin@ponymail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 8, 2002, at 12:54  PM, Thomas Olsson wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> I think the Feist standard should apply. In the case of your poem 
> generator, the output is apparently random. In the case of Google, the 
> output is the result of various algorithms based on references from 
> other sites.

But it is not random. For any given URL you get the same poem every time,
as if you were retrieving a file by name.

There is a database of words, and the input URL determines what is pulled
from the database and presented. If I change the database, I get different
results, just like Google.

> Feist limits copyright to "original intellectual conceptions of the 
> author".

The algorithm itself is original to the best of my knowledge, but I
wouldn't say 'novel' (still, it could probably be patented these days).

> If the order of search results on a google page results from rigorous 
> application of a set of original heuristics and rules, perhaps the page 
> is subject to copyright.

That's like mine then, there is a well defined (and original) set of rules
linking the input URL to the output poem.

> As for the poem generator, does it rely on an original algorithm. Or is 
> the result based on a pseudo-random number generator-- well known to the 
> art?

As mentioned above, it isn't random. From a programmer's POV, it is much
more like a decompression algorithm. But for the purposes of researching
copyright rules, I'd rather view it as a method of retrieving works.

Regards,
Thomas

-- 
	9876543210  Magic tab-o-meter.		http://www.armware.dk/
         ^
     The opinions expressed herein may not reflect official RIAA policy.