3 ms·

Your distinction between "measure" and "estimate" seems meaningless to me, and probably to most scientists and engineers. All physical measurements have uncerta

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.
- tripletao 6y ago
  Is there case law on the price targets? That one seems yet hazier to me, given the inherent uncertainty of predictions vs. (still uncertain) estimates of current truths. I guess in a deterministic universe they're the same thing, but that seems a bit too philosophical for most lawyers' taste. In any case, large companies with near-infinite legal budgets still don't get to (openly) violate well-settled law, since judges do see what's happening and seek to minimize the burden on their opponents--and even award legal fees where possible, which it probably would be here under the Copyright Act. Their advantage comes when the law is at least slightly unclear and a victory would be worth a lot more dollars to the large company (for the precedent) than to their opponent. I believe that's the situation here, and the reason why CNW chose not to pursue Google for copyright infringement; though even with matched legal teams, I'd still bet that CNW would lose. Finally, if that mass of the Earth isn't copyrightable, then no concept of fair use exists, because that concept exists only for copyrighted material; so I don't think your statement there makes sense. If a copyright for the CNW dataset did exist (which I doubt, but maybe), then Google could still argue fair use. I'd bet Google would lose that one, since they're using the whole work, without transformation of the original, in a way that destroys the commercial value of the original.

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.

tripletao 6y ago
Is there case law on the price targets? That one seems yet hazier to me, given the inherent uncertainty of predictions vs. (still uncertain) estimates of current truths. I guess in a deterministic universe they're the same thing, but that seems a bit too philosophical for most lawyers' taste. In any case, large companies with near-infinite legal budgets still don't get to (openly) violate well-settled law, since judges do see what's happening and seek to minimize the burden on their opponents--and even award legal fees where possible, which it probably would be here under the Copyright Act. Their advantage comes when the law is at least slightly unclear and a victory would be worth a lot more dollars to the large company (for the precedent) than to their opponent. I believe that's the situation here, and the reason why CNW chose not to pursue Google for copyright infringement; though even with matched legal teams, I'd still bet that CNW would lose. Finally, if that mass of the Earth isn't copyrightable, then no concept of fair use exists, because that concept exists only for copyrighted material; so I don't think your statement there makes sense. If a copyright for the CNW dataset did exist (which I doubt, but maybe), then Google could still argue fair use. I'd bet Google would lose that one, since they're using the whole work, without transformation of the original, in a way that destroys the commercial value of the original.