3 ms·

I was assuming people were familiar with the process and handwaving the rest. You measure things like: * What average sentence length? * What is the ratio of

I was assuming people were familiar with the process and handwaving the rest. You measure things like: * What average sentence length? * What is the ratio of adjectives to nouns? * What percentage of sentences are in a passive voice? * What is the distribution of words used? * Is "the" used more often by the other than in general usage? * "whence" vs "when". * "tyre" vs "tire". Etc. This could all be printed out and sold as a book and each measure would be a very boring fact that is not copyrightable and contains no copyrightable content. I could give you a word frequency list from the A Song of Fire and Ice series and George RR Martin could do nothing about it. (Technically, he might have the rights to "Arya" and "Lannister", but to say "the word 'Lannister' appears 1,337 times in the series" would clearly fall under fair-use).

raincole 3y ago
Sorry it's nonsense. You're basically saying: 1. Anything existing is considered a fact. 2. Stating a fact doesn't infringe copyright. The only conclusion your logic can infer to is copyright doesn't exist. For example, I can say "the first sentence of A Song of Fire and Ice series is <insert the first sentence>, the second sentence is <insert the second sentence>, the third sentence is...". It's still just a list of facts, so no copyright infringement, right?
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  I think it that case if you went through the whole book like that a judge would argue that you are infringing because you can recover the whole book like that. But if you went by and grabbed the very first sentence from each chapter that's is sufficiently in the clear. Especially when you are doing something transformative with it. Like for example analysing what makes for an effective opening sentence. With copyright you always get to ugly slippery slope arguments, Tom Scott has a great video on it. But if you cannot extract something the replaces the original work you should be already in the clear. I'm pretty sure Cole's Notes don't need the original author's permission to print and they are arguably a substitute for reading the original work. I've skimmed through entire series by reading the individual episode summaries on Wikipedia. These are in the clear. The fact that a machine speeds up a human process does not change legality.

raincole 3y ago

Sorry it's nonsense. You're basically saying: 1. Anything existing is considered a fact. 2. Stating a fact doesn't infringe copyright. The only conclusion your logic can infer to is copyright doesn't exist. For example, I can say "the first sentence of A Song of Fire and Ice series is <insert the first sentence>, the second sentence is <insert the second sentence>, the third sentence is...". It's still just a list of facts, so no copyright infringement, right?

Pet_Ant 3y ago
I think it that case if you went through the whole book like that a judge would argue that you are infringing because you can recover the whole book like that. But if you went by and grabbed the very first sentence from each chapter that's is sufficiently in the clear. Especially when you are doing something transformative with it. Like for example analysing what makes for an effective opening sentence. With copyright you always get to ugly slippery slope arguments, Tom Scott has a great video on it. But if you cannot extract something the replaces the original work you should be already in the clear. I'm pretty sure Cole's Notes don't need the original author's permission to print and they are arguably a substitute for reading the original work. I've skimmed through entire series by reading the individual episode summaries on Wikipedia. These are in the clear. The fact that a machine speeds up a human process does not change legality.