Copyright

chuckfresno · Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:17 pm Post subject:

dukosu--

You have every right to argue your opinion, but you nave NO right to place your opinion over the opinions of others. You do NOT have the right to claim that someone else's copyright is not valid. Place your OWN work into the public domain. You have yet to change your opinon on *anything* based on *anything* *anyone* has said to you in these forums. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are not "protecting science" -- if anything, you are doing the opposite by creating a hostile environment in which to speak. You are not a Judge. This forum is not under your jurusdiction. You are absolutely and completely out-of-line. Would you do this to our faces without running for cover? You attack someone who is giving freely of his time to benefit all who wish to participate asking NOTHING in return -- but that seems to be an agregious insult to you, so you must attack him, doing the opposite of the only thing he asked of you -- respect his copyright. He gave those puzzles freely to anyone to do anything they want with them short of using them commercially or claiming authorship.

I suggest that you appologize, cease and desist. You don't have to change your position to stop being a bully. Again, if you wish to challenge copyright, do it elsewhere, where it might have some meaning. Copy 100 puzzles that have been published in the TIMES or the TELEGRAPH or in any of the recently published Sudoku books. Place them on your website in an easy to download format with a notice explaining your position, where the puzzles are from and that they are actually in the public domain and that anyone should feel free to do anything the wish with the puzzles, including selling them as a single pack of puzzles. Notify the newspaper or publisher you took them from. They might ignore you. Or they might sue you. You may or may not prevail in court -- but it will cost you thousands either way.

dukuso · Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:57 am Post subject:

chuckfresno--

you wrote:

>You have every right to argue your opinion, but you nave NO
>right to place your opinion over the opinions of others.

please quote the exact law you are referring to

>You do NOT have the right to claim that someone else's copyright
>is not valid.

would you have the "right" to claim that an invalid copyright
were valid ? It's hard to argue with someone who just puts
his opinion as an _axiom_

>Place your OWN work into the public domain.

I did.

>You have yet to change your opinon on *anything* based on
>*anything* *anyone* has said to you in these forums.

?

>You are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are not
>"protecting science" --

I certainly know better about _my_ reasons than you.
BTW. it has already happened that science was hindered.
I asked H.Simonis for a copy of the hard "Telegraf"-instances
which he used in his paper about Sudoku to be presented
at a conference about constraint programming in Spain
next month. He refused and referred to their copyright.
It's usual in science to keep the sources of your statistical
analysis available, so your results can be verified independently.

>if anything, you are doing the
>opposite by creating a hostile environment in which to speak.
>You are not a Judge. This forum is not under your jurusdiction.
>You are absolutely and completely out-of-line. Would you do
>this to our faces without running for cover? You attack
>someone

I'm not attacking him.Just arguing and pointing him to
a possible/likely error in his opinion.

>who is giving freely of his time to benefit all
>who wish to participate asking NOTHING in return --

And he asked (claimed) for copyright on something which I think
can't be copyrighted because it's public domain, like
integers, air, etc. Is that "NOTHING" ?

>but that seems to be an agregious insult to you, so you must
>attack him, doing the opposite of the only thing he asked
>of you -- respect his copyright. He gave those puzzles
>freely to anyone to do anything they want with them short
>using them commercially or claiming authorship.

And I did neither of these.
But no. Claiming copyright means also e.g. that we
mustn't copy them. We are not allowed to post them
to a forum or put them into our database.
Maybe not even in our application. Maybe not even
unzipping them, that's debatable.
The sudoku would be _his_ for 70 years etc.
Just some of the implications.

>I suggest that you appologize, cease and desist. You don't have

I will, should I figure out that he had indeed legal
reason to claim copyright.

>to change your position to stop being a bully.[brutaler Kerl] Again, if you wish
>to challenge copyright, do it elsewhere, where it might have some
>meaning. Copy 100 puzzles that have been published in the TIMES or
>the TELEGRAPH or in any of the recently published Sudoku books.

..and thus doing again, what you just critisized me for ??
Is it OK to do something -which you consider illegal- just because
the opponent is -what you seem to think- less sympathetic ?

>Place them on your website in an easy to download format with a
>notice explaining your position, where the puzzles are from and
>that they are actually in the public domain and that anyone
>should feel free to do anything the wish with the puzzles,
>including selling them as a single pack of puzzles.
>Notify the newspaper or publisher you took them from.
>They might ignore you. Or they might sue you. You may
>or may not prevail in court -- but it will cost you
>thousands either way.

that's all what you want ? But then neither you nor Angus would
get them, so why ? (I notice you're down from "a house" to "thousands"..)

Well, we'll see. I won't do this without having researched a bit
more about the laws. There are also some differences : Angus
did post the puzzles to public by himself, he admits having
created them by computer, he didn't tell about his copyright
claim when inviting to download the files.

Maybe some people in newsgroups where I asked this will jump in.
I was hoping others here would also be interested to figure things out.

And please, let's solve this problem by logic alone.

if you think this "creates a hostile environment" , well that was
not intended. But hey, this is internet, don't be too sensitive.
You'll see much worse things flame wars etc. dayly in newsgroups.
You're supposed to argue freely about your opinion without
being too much afraid of provoking others - within the rules,
of course. That's what made the success of usenet and forums.

cheers, Guenter.

chuckfresno · Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:57 am Post subject:

dukosu--

I just ready your thread on this subject in rec.puzzles. Each and every person takes the position opposite yours, yet do not seem to have moved in the slightest from your original position.

You ask for cases, they quote cases. You are not moved. I can summarize the evidence you offer this way: "I think it should be the way I say it should be. Prove me wrong."

The comparision to crosswords is perfect, but you don't think so, you think it is irrelevant. Sudokus can be created by computer. You're told that crosswords can and are generated by computer. You don't see how that makes any difference. You claim that the copyright holder has the burden of proof, you are told that this is NOT the case, that the infringer has the burden of proof -- you are unfazed.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that a legal issue can be decided by logic with mathematical certanty. Laws are NOT a mathematical constructions. Judge's rulings are often called OPINIONS. It simply does not matter what SHOULD be, especially not what you or I THINK should be, only what IS.

If this were a civil trial and we were the jury, it is clear we would rule 11 to 1 in favor of Angus's position. You've stated your case, we've all state ours. No one agrees with your position.

This would be an good time to graciously admit that you were wrong in this instance and appoligize for falsely claiming that Angus's puzzles are in the public domain. You can then change your position slightly from "Sudokus are not copyrightable" to "I think that is terrible that Sudokus are copyrightable" and then we'll all be happy.

rfb · Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:24 am Post subject:

It is pointless to continue this argument,
dukosu has his view and is prepared to carry on debating it ad-infinitum.
He is unlikely to be swayed by any argument so it is not worth the effort.
_________________
Bob

kudosu · Site Admin

Sudokus are not facts. They're not mathematical concepts. They are puzzles.

By your reasoning, dukosu, it is impossible to copyright a work of fiction, simply because there are a finite set of possible fictions.

You are not doing anything illegal, but angus has the right to decide how his puzzles are published.

dukuso · Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:27 pm Post subject:

chuckfresno wrote:

>I just ready your thread on this subject in rec.puzzles.
>Each and every person takes the position opposite yours,

not true. The interested reader may convince himself by following
this link:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.puzzles/browse_frm/thread/0af8bdc326ff0113/df7dad07421b9d81#df7dad07421b9d81

>yet do not seem to have moved in the slightest from your original
>position.
>
>You ask for cases, they quote cases.

the Dutch judge in the van Dale vs. Remme case supports my position :

"According to the Court a collection of words will only

(the same should apply to a collection of numbers or sudokus [G.S.])

be protected by copyright "if it results from a selection
process expressing the author's personal views".

... in order for an object to qualify as a work of
literature, science or art, "it is necessary for
it to have an original and individual character
bearing the personal imprint of its maker", "

>You are not moved. I can summarize the evidence you offer this way:
>"I think it should be the way I say it should be. Prove me wrong."
>
>The comparision to crosswords is perfect, but you don't think so,
>you think it is irrelevant.

how do you conclude this ? I wrote: "yes,thanks...there could be
some differences though" And this was confirmed by Arthur,
who seems to be a specialist for crosswords

>Sudokus can be created by computer. You're told that crosswords
>can and are generated by computer. You don't see how that makes
>any difference. You claim that the copyright holder has the burden
>of proof, you are told that this is NOT the case,
>that the infringer has the burden of proof -- you are unfazed.

Jaap once said this. But without reference. It's not what
I found on other sources on the web.

>You seem to be stuck on the idea that a legal issue can be decided
>by logic with mathematical certanty.

not certainety but probability

>Laws are NOT a mathematical constructions. Judge's rulings are often
>called OPINIONS. It simply does not matter what SHOULD be, especially
>not what you or I THINK should be, only what IS.

laws are made to reduce/minimize the effect of "opinions".

>If this were a civil trial and we were the jury, it is clear
>we would rule 11 to 1 in favor of Angus's position.

the judge will have to consult the laws, and the former cases about
similar matters. And this is not a criminal trial, decided by a jury.

>You've stated your case, we've all state ours.

Other than you I've given arguments and references, not just opinions.

>No one agrees with your position.
>
>This would be an good time to graciously admit that you were
>wrong in this instance

but you just said there were no "wrong" in this case yet, just opinion

>and appoligize for falsely claiming that Angus's puzzles
>are in the public domain.

this is still undecided. Only that _probably_ they were not copyrighted.

>You can then change your position
>slightly from "Sudokus are not copyrightable" to "I think that
>is terrible that Sudokus are copyrightable" and then we'll all be happy.

for now I stick to both these assertions.
I hope that makes you double happy :-)

rfb wrote:
>It is pointless to continue this argument,
>dukosu has his view and is prepared to carry on debating it ad-infinitum.
>He is unlikely to be swayed by any argument so it is not worth the effort.

I didn't find real "arguments" here yet. Angus refuses to discuss,
chuckfresno just gives opinions. You gave no argument either.

But I agree, we should post follow-ups to rec.puzzles or
misc.int-property , for a more competent audience.
(still waiting that the math-people jump in...)
I'd appreciate postings to there. Pros and Cons.
I just hope for more legal references and more logic.
But you can also just give your opinions, of course,
as long as you don't just mark them as "truth".

Kuduso wrote:
>Sudokus are not facts. They're not mathematical concepts.

not concepts, but (combinatorial) entities or instances.
They'd been there as long as math. They can only be discovered,
not created. Like QWH-instances, like numbers.

>They are puzzles.

they can be both.

>By your reasoning, dukosu, it is impossible to copyright
>a work of fiction, simply because there are a finite set
>of possible fictions.

don't really understand, what you want to say here.
The number of possible fictions is clearly infinite.
Of course, there are finite subsets of each set.

I've seen people comparing sudokus with all sorts of things
in this debate, books,movies,crossword-puzzles and now fiction.
But apparantly noone wants to compare them with what
they _are_ by definition : a special sort of QWH-instances.
Or just 81-digit numbers in the typical storing them
on computer or posting here.

>You are not doing anything illegal, but angus has the right
>to decide how his puzzles are published.

this seems to be contradicting.
To what "right" exactly do you refer ? Please give a law and a
chapter/paragraph.

Angus decided to publish the puzzles by posting a link here
inviting to download a ".zip" file which contained
the puzzles and a file "copyright.txt" in which he
claimed copyright for the puzzles. He didn't announce this
in the post where he gave the link.
He already had decided to put the puzzles to public.
The "copyright.txt" is meaningless anyway. When they were
copyrighted, then they were copyrighted even without
this file and even when they were downloaded and maybe
illegally copied while unzipping before seeing the copyright file.
Also he doesn't say by which law he thinks they are copyright
and in which countries.

I asked him to specify but he refused.

Guenter.

kudosu · Site Admin

My point is that Don Quixote, for example, can also be represented as a string of numbers, and therefore you could claim that it has been "discovered" in the same way as a sudoku puzzle.

Of course, it is much more likely to independently come up with the same sudoku as someone else than it is to come up with the same work of fiction, but we're talking about cases here where you are clearly reproducing a puzzle published elsewhere.

There are only an infinite number of fictions if you place no limit on the number of words in each one.

You are not doing anything illegal by reproducing someone else's puzzle, as copyright breach isn't a criminal offence, but the author of the puzzle does have the right to sue you for it.

Whether they win or not is a different matter, and I'm not all that bothered.

PSBlake · Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject:

Having recently taken a course on Internet Law (with emphasis on Copyright), I can say with confidence that, the US at least, copyright on a single Sudoku would be difficult to defend at best, especially a machine generated Sudoku. The fact of the matter is that they are not creative works, but the result of a procedure.

Copyright can easily be claimed on the software used to generated the Sudokus, or possibly the collection of Sudokus themselves, but the fact of the matter is that there is a reasonably small number of Sudokus which can easily be randomly generated by a set of rules. Moreover, every randomly generated Sudoku, if made according to those rules, will be playable, and to a certain degree, enjoyable. Every random Sudoku is meaningful, and every handmade Sudoku can be randomly generated. The same is not true of other works: Not every random string of characters corresponds to a meaningful sequence, nor does every random series of pixels represent a meaningful picture.

In fact, I just demonstrated in another thread that all 9x9 Sudokus can be represented in a mere 11 bytes. I doubt you'll ever be able to convince anyone that an 11-byte string is copyrightable. Trademarkable, perhaps, but not copyrightable.

hw · Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:51 am Post subject:

Hello all!

I am deeply convinced that dukuso's statements only sound harsh sometimes, they are not meant that unfriendly. I believe he only tries to write down facts for us.

And he is right, in general.

Best regards,
Heinz

isudoku · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:53 am Post subject:

source code is difficult to understand.

MCondron · Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:56 pm Post subject:

Just wait until my lawyer tracks down everyone who's infringing on my patent for using a computer to emit numbers in a square format ... Twisted Evil

(joking, of course, although a company I used to work at did actually face some litigation once that had a very similar flavor to it....)