6 ms·

All facts are well researched estimates. Our number for the speed of light didn't come out of the ether: someone came up with a very sophisticated experiment to

All facts are well researched estimates. Our number for the speed of light didn't come out of the ether: someone came up with a very sophisticated experiment to get a highly accurate estimate and different experiments get different estimates. Do you think the speed of light should be copyrightable?

mthoms 6y ago
The speed of light is absolutely not an estimate. It's a mathematically provable fact. Facts (in this context) are numbers that are not reasonably disputable. The value of pi, the speed of light and my current phone number are all facts. What I happen to think the net worth of someone else is, is certainly not a fact. You might think it's something else. It would be difficult to prove either one of us right.
- lalaland1125 6y ago
  If you don't believe that the speed of light is a physically measured quantity, then replace that question with whatever physical constant you prefer (charge of an electron, gravitational constant, current mass of the earth, etc, etc). Do you think those numbers should be copyrightable? The charge of the electron is particularly interesting as there was actually a lot of debate over that number because some of the original experiments were flawed.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    >If you don't believe that the speed of light is a physically measured quantity, then replace that question with whatever physical constant you prefer Wait, what? You asserted the speed of light could only be estimated. Not me. A "physical constant" is, by definition, a fact and not copyrightable. You're now arguing the opposite point you were arguing two comments ago ("all facts are well-researched estimates"). What are you trying to do?
    - tripletao 6y ago
      Your distinction between "measure" and "estimate" seems meaningless to me, and probably to most scientists and engineers. All physical measurements have uncertainty, and many people are engaged as we speak in creative (in the colloquial sense of the word) work seeking to reduce that uncertainty. We tend to say "measurement" when the uncertainty is negligibly small for whatever purpose is at hand, and "estimate" when it's not; but that distinction is as much in how the number will be used as in the number itself. As to specific examples, the speed of light and charge on an electron are tricky because they're both exact by definition in SI today; but considerable creativity was required to get those definitions. The mass of the Earth is uncertain in kg today, and creative work is ongoing to decrease that uncertainty. So does that make a new estimate of the mass of the Earth copyrightable? Perhaps just the last, previously-unknown digits would be copyrightable? I'm not aware of case law on anything too closely resembling physical constants; but I'm near-certain the answer if litigated would be no, and I'd guess the argument would be something like "you're uncovering some preexisting truth, not creating something new (no matter how 'creative' your approach to the uncovering)". Returning to the original question, the CNW guy presumably got competent legal advice and concluded the copyright angle wasn't worth pursuing, and instead focused on the antitrust angle in his testimony.
      - mthoms 6y ago
        >So does that make a new estimate of the mass of the Earth copyrightable? Likely not on its own (due to fair use). But in a "collection" of estimates for the mass of all known celestial bodies then yes, it absolutely would be copyrightable. The same way a collection of stock price targets produced by a research company are copyrightable. I agree with the rest of your comment in general but it's relevance to the discussion is questionable. In court, the speed of light would certainly be "a fact" unless it was expressed to a precision beyond the margin of error, and that margin of error was relevant to the copyright claim. That's getting way off track from the original point since we'd be talking about a singular number instead of a collection of numbers. Back to the original discussion: A collection of facts is not copyright-able. The poster said the collection of wealth estimates was factual and therefore not copyright-able. That's provably false since another, equally skilled researcher would come up with different numbers and they can't both be factual. Right? >the CNW guy presumably got competent legal advice and concluded the copyright angle wasn't worth pursuing You're trying to imply that this means he had no legal basis for his claim. I find that very disingenuous. Besides, there's no need to speculate on why he didn't pursue legal action, the reasons are clearly outlined in the write up. Edit: I see now why the "speed of light" example is not a good one since the meter is derived from the speed of light. Perhaps pi is the best example of a simple, agreed upon, physical constant or "fact" for the purpose of this debate.

mthoms 6y ago

The speed of light is absolutely not an estimate. It's a mathematically provable fact. Facts (in this context) are numbers that are not reasonably disputable. The value of pi, the speed of light and my current phone number are all facts. What I happen to think the net worth of someone else is, is certainly not a fact. You might think it's something else. It would be difficult to prove either one of us right.

lalaland1125 6y ago
If you don't believe that the speed of light is a physically measured quantity, then replace that question with whatever physical constant you prefer (charge of an electron, gravitational constant, current mass of the earth, etc, etc). Do you think those numbers should be copyrightable? The charge of the electron is particularly interesting as there was actually a lot of debate over that number because some of the original experiments were flawed.
- mthoms 6y ago
  >If you don't believe that the speed of light is a physically measured quantity, then replace that question with whatever physical constant you prefer Wait, what? You asserted the speed of light could only be estimated. Not me. A "physical constant" is, by definition, a fact and not copyrightable. You're now arguing the opposite point you were arguing two comments ago ("all facts are well-researched estimates"). What are you trying to do?
  - tripletao 6y ago
    Your distinction between "measure" and "estimate" seems meaningless to me, and probably to most scientists and engineers. All physical measurements have uncertainty, and many people are engaged as we speak in creative (in the colloquial sense of the word) work seeking to reduce that uncertainty. We tend to say "measurement" when the uncertainty is negligibly small for whatever purpose is at hand, and "estimate" when it's not; but that distinction is as much in how the number will be used as in the number itself. As to specific examples, the speed of light and charge on an electron are tricky because they're both exact by definition in SI today; but considerable creativity was required to get those definitions. The mass of the Earth is uncertain in kg today, and creative work is ongoing to decrease that uncertainty. So does that make a new estimate of the mass of the Earth copyrightable? Perhaps just the last, previously-unknown digits would be copyrightable? I'm not aware of case law on anything too closely resembling physical constants; but I'm near-certain the answer if litigated would be no, and I'd guess the argument would be something like "you're uncovering some preexisting truth, not creating something new (no matter how 'creative' your approach to the uncovering)". Returning to the original question, the CNW guy presumably got competent legal advice and concluded the copyright angle wasn't worth pursuing, and instead focused on the antitrust angle in his testimony.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      >So does that make a new estimate of the mass of the Earth copyrightable? Likely not on its own (due to fair use). But in a "collection" of estimates for the mass of all known celestial bodies then yes, it absolutely would be copyrightable. The same way a collection of stock price targets produced by a research company are copyrightable. I agree with the rest of your comment in general but it's relevance to the discussion is questionable. In court, the speed of light would certainly be "a fact" unless it was expressed to a precision beyond the margin of error, and that margin of error was relevant to the copyright claim. That's getting way off track from the original point since we'd be talking about a singular number instead of a collection of numbers. Back to the original discussion: A collection of facts is not copyright-able. The poster said the collection of wealth estimates was factual and therefore not copyright-able. That's provably false since another, equally skilled researcher would come up with different numbers and they can't both be factual. Right? >the CNW guy presumably got competent legal advice and concluded the copyright angle wasn't worth pursuing You're trying to imply that this means he had no legal basis for his claim. I find that very disingenuous. Besides, there's no need to speculate on why he didn't pursue legal action, the reasons are clearly outlined in the write up. Edit: I see now why the "speed of light" example is not a good one since the meter is derived from the speed of light. Perhaps pi is the best example of a simple, agreed upon, physical constant or "fact" for the purpose of this debate.