4 ms·

> If the implementing website did not actually copy the copytext from the generator and came up with the exact same language by chance, then the implementing pa

by lutusp 12y ago

> If the implementing website did not actually copy the copytext from the generator and came up with the exact same language by chance, then the implementing party owns the copyright (or more accurately, the implementing party has not infringed upon the rights of whoever wrote the idea generator). This is quite false. A copyrighted work's content is protected by copyright, and how it is duplicated doesn't enter into the equation. In principle, with a very powerful set of computers and a lot of time, I could randomly generate any work of art, visual, sound or print. The fact that the works were generated randomly doesn't make any difference. There are many variations on the thousand monkeys at typewriters story going back decades, but the idea is if enough random sequences of words are generated, eventually a recognizable, copyrighted work will appear. Many people don't realize that the "Birthday Song" is copyrighted. The first measure is a mere six notes long. Assuming I can render the tune within a range 12 semitones, I only have to generate 12^6 = 2,985,984 notes, to be absolutely certain to have randomly violated the copyright somewhere in the sequence -- and, of course, it's very likely that I will have succeeded well before generating all 2,985,984 notes. But my method of generating the tune is irrelevant to the outcome, which is a potential copyright violation.

tlarkworthy 12y ago
Minor trivial technicality ... the 6 note Birthday song snippet is the 6 notes AND the 5 spaces between the notes, so your combinations are underestimated by a bit (3^5 ish). Still reachable by enumeration though.
- lutusp 12y ago
  Fair enough. If there were rests of different lengths between the notes, I might have included them. But as you say, the generation model still works, and as computers become more powerful, such perversities will become more common. :) I look forward to future algorithms that will, on demand, create random but coherent music that closely resembles Mozart, or Beethoven (the string-quartet Beethoven, not the other one :) ) or another composer of the user's choosing. I know some pilot projects like this have been done, but they're not accessible yet.
andrewfong 12y ago
I think you're confused by my original statement. By "came up with the exact same language by chance", I mean "came up with the exact same language without reference to idea generator," i.e. your copy of the text was independently created. Under U.S. law, there must be actual copying in order to infringe upon copyright.[1] Note that is different from patent law, which does not protect independent "invention". That doesn't mean you can get around the Happy Birthday copyright[2] by simply randomly generating six note sequences until you get the one you want. That's still considered copying for all intents and purposes. On the other hand, let's say you somehow never heard the Happy Birthday song and somehow just came up with them on their own. That's fine -- no copying, no infringement. This is what I was referring to. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity [2] There's actually a good argument that the song is no longer copyrighted. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/filmmaker-picks-a-copyright-fight-with-happy-birthday/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/filmmaker-picks-a...
- lutusp 12y ago
  > I think you're confused by my original statement. No, not confused in the slightest. > By "came up with the exact same language by chance", I mean "came up with the exact same language without reference to idea generator," i.e. your copy of the text was independently created. Did you actually read my post? My "Birthday song" example shows that a randomly generated sequence of notes still constitutes a copyright violation. > Under U.S. law, there must be actual copying in order to infringe upon copyright. Yes, but you're confused about the meaning of "actual copying". Any method that substantially reproduces the original constitutes actual copying. > That doesn't mean you can get around the Happy Birthday copyright[2] by simply randomly generating six note sequences until you get the one you want. That is absolutely false, and I am shocked that you would post this nonsense in a public forum. The result is the only issue -- if it's a copy of a protected work, no one asks how the copy was generated. > On the other hand, let's say you somehow never heard the Happy Birthday song and somehow just came up with them on their own. That's fine -- no copying, no infringement. Also false, as much case law demonstrates. The difference in the case of simultaneous invention is the severity of the punishment, not the judgment that it's a violation. Your reference to substantial similarity isn't relevant to what we're talking about. Substantial similarity addresses the issue of how alike two works are, not how a work was copied. Two works that are sufficiently different are judged not to be in conflict with respect to copyright issues. The method of copying is not a factor. > There's actually a good argument that the song is no longer copyrighted. Yes, and IMHO it shouldn't be copyrighted. It's a classic example of a perversion in copyright law.

by lutusp 12y ago

tlarkworthy 12y ago

Minor trivial technicality ... the 6 note Birthday song snippet is the 6 notes AND the 5 spaces between the notes, so your combinations are underestimated by a bit (3^5 ish). Still reachable by enumeration though.

lutusp 12y ago
Fair enough. If there were rests of different lengths between the notes, I might have included them. But as you say, the generation model still works, and as computers become more powerful, such perversities will become more common. :) I look forward to future algorithms that will, on demand, create random but coherent music that closely resembles Mozart, or Beethoven (the string-quartet Beethoven, not the other one :) ) or another composer of the user's choosing. I know some pilot projects like this have been done, but they're not accessible yet.

andrewfong 12y ago

I think you're confused by my original statement. By "came up with the exact same language by chance", I mean "came up with the exact same language without reference to idea generator," i.e. your copy of the text was independently created. Under U.S. law, there must be actual copying in order to infringe upon copyright.[1] Note that is different from patent law, which does not protect independent "invention". That doesn't mean you can get around the Happy Birthday copyright[2] by simply randomly generating six note sequences until you get the one you want. That's still considered copying for all intents and purposes. On the other hand, let's say you somehow never heard the Happy Birthday song and somehow just came up with them on their own. That's fine -- no copying, no infringement. This is what I was referring to. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity [2] There's actually a good argument that the song is no longer copyrighted. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/filmmaker-picks-a-copyright-fight-with-happy-birthday/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/filmmaker-picks-a...

lutusp 12y ago
> I think you're confused by my original statement. No, not confused in the slightest. > By "came up with the exact same language by chance", I mean "came up with the exact same language without reference to idea generator," i.e. your copy of the text was independently created. Did you actually read my post? My "Birthday song" example shows that a randomly generated sequence of notes still constitutes a copyright violation. > Under U.S. law, there must be actual copying in order to infringe upon copyright. Yes, but you're confused about the meaning of "actual copying". Any method that substantially reproduces the original constitutes actual copying. > That doesn't mean you can get around the Happy Birthday copyright[2] by simply randomly generating six note sequences until you get the one you want. That is absolutely false, and I am shocked that you would post this nonsense in a public forum. The result is the only issue -- if it's a copy of a protected work, no one asks how the copy was generated. > On the other hand, let's say you somehow never heard the Happy Birthday song and somehow just came up with them on their own. That's fine -- no copying, no infringement. Also false, as much case law demonstrates. The difference in the case of simultaneous invention is the severity of the punishment, not the judgment that it's a violation. Your reference to substantial similarity isn't relevant to what we're talking about. Substantial similarity addresses the issue of how alike two works are, not how a work was copied. Two works that are sufficiently different are judged not to be in conflict with respect to copyright issues. The method of copying is not a factor. > There's actually a good argument that the song is no longer copyrighted. Yes, and IMHO it shouldn't be copyrighted. It's a classic example of a perversion in copyright law.