From roach@u.washington.edu Sun Oct 22 17:32:47 1995 Return-Path: Received: from homer18.u.washington.edu by saul5.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA02962; Sun, 22 Oct 95 17:32:46 -0700 Received: by homer18.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA70663; Sun, 22 Oct 95 17:32:46 -0700 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 95 17:32:46 -0700 From: Jared Roach Message-Id: <9510230032.AA70663@homer18.u.washington.edu> X-Sender: roach@homer18.u.washington.edu To: roach@u.washington.edu Newsgroups: rec.games.go,rec.games.backgammon,rec.games.chess.politics Subject: Copyrighting Game Records Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Status: RO X-Status: Copyrighting Game Records This subject has been raised before. I remember walking away with no definite impressions, and no data, so I cornered a couple of experienced intellectual property lawyers the other day, and asked them. It was at the reception following the Shidler, McBroom, Gates, and Lucas Lecture in Law and Technology (yes, that would be William Gates Sr.). One of the people discussing the issue was Dennis Vogt (Harvard, 1969), and another was a specialist in intellectual property whose name has unfortunately slipped my mind. They knew of no litigation involving game records, nor of any specific legislation, and said therefore the issue must be decided by analogy, barring a sucessful search for precedent, which might take considerable time and effort. They felt pretty confident, however, that game records were NOT copyrightable, and that the appropriate analogy would be "the recording of a historical event." It was extremely claer that openings and joseki would not be copyrightable. It was also clear that composed problems, game commentaries, and strategic advice, would be copyrightable, although reprashing such things in a slightly different way might very well not be a violation of such copyright. It was also clear that a copyright on a game, IF POSSIBLE, could not prevent other players from replaying that game freely. For example, if you came up with a new variation of a joseki, you could not charge other players for playing that particular move in a subsequent game. A possible analogy with choreography was raised and discarded. Reasoning seemed to focus on the fact that Go is based on a limited ruleset (the Rules of Go). The ruleset itself, as an idea, is neither copyrightable or patentable, at least in the case of an ancient game. Restricted actions (finite, albeit near infinite) taken in this context then represent historic actions, and as such not copyrightable. (The lawyers seemed to follow this line of reasoning better than I did, but it agreed with my basic intuition that Go game records would not be copyrightable.) It was clear that IF you consider a Go game a performance, then if it was done in public (for example on a computer server with free access) then a record of the game would not be copyrightable. If a fee were charged, or it was private, and IF it were considered a performance, then it MIGHT be copyrightable. One analogy might be that of a football game. Even if the copyright on the video of the game is held, one cannot copyright the sequence of plays called by each team. I felt this was a pretty good analogy to a Go game. I raised the question of international law, particularly in the context of "Say I, physically in the United States, play a game with an opponent physically in Japan mediated by a computer server located in Korea..." The experts on hand did not know the copyright laws of these other countries, or how one might untangle them if there were discrepancies, and the general conclusion was that international law was a fertile field for budding lawyers to explore and profit from. The lawyers cautioned that, barring litigation precedent which might not exist, the answers to some of these questions might only be determined in a court of law, and that (as all Americans can now attest to) such courts were not entirely predictable. If anyone knows of any litigation involving game records from Go or Chess or Backgammon or some such game, I would love to know. If anyone knows of any copyright laws from other coutries that might lead to different conclusions on the copyrightability of game records, I would love to haer about these as well. __________________________________________ Jared Roach, 1d AGA roach@u.washington.edu Seattle, Washington "better to play Go than to do nothing..." From pwaldron@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca Sun Oct 22 18:59:28 1995 Return-Path: Received: from mx4.u.washington.edu by saul5.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA16304; Sun, 22 Oct 95 18:59:26 -0700 Received: from sciborg.uwaterloo.ca by mx4.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA19020; Sun, 22 Oct 95 18:59:18 -0700 Received: by sciborg.uwaterloo.ca id ; Sun, 22 Oct 95 21:59:16 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 21:59:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Philip Waldron To: roach@u.washington.edu Subject: Copyrighting game records Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: A Regarding your posting about copyrighting game records on rec.games.go, I can only think of one case which could possibly be interpreted as someone trying to enforce a copyright on a game record. The incident was in Japan, and the Nihon Kiin changed the sponsorship of the Meijin title between two rival newspapers. The upshot of the fight was that the original paper was paying enough anymore for the prize money (since the Nihon Kiin took a slice of the prize money for itself, it was directly affecting thefinancial health of the Nihon Kiin as well). Anyway, the losing newspaper didn't like this and resorted to court action to try and prevent the new sponsor from publishing the new title match games. I don't ever think the case was resolved in court since the original paper got to sponsor the new Kisei title, so it seems like the case was a moot point by the time it came to court. Just to put one additional fly in the ointment about copyrighting games played on the IGS, standard rules may not necessarily apply to those games. I'm not sure if the case could be argued that the IGS is not a public place and that one of the conditions for playing there would be agreeing to give up any copyright rights. It seems to me like a fairly flimsy case, but there could possibly be the implied understanding sort of argument brought up. Anyway I'm not a lawyer or a law student, so my experience is limited in this area. Don't take my theories with anything other than a great deal of salt. :) Philip Waldron pwaldron@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca From roach@u.washington.edu Mon Oct 23 13:04:17 1995 Return-Path: Received: from homer20.u.washington.edu by saul5.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA13115; Mon, 23 Oct 95 13:04:12 -0700 Received: by homer20.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA91281; Mon, 23 Oct 95 13:04:07 -0700 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 13:04:07 -0700 From: Jared Roach Message-Id: <9510232004.AA91281@homer20.u.washington.edu> X-Sender: roach@homer20.u.washington.edu To: radford@cs.toronto.edu Subject: Re: Copyrighting Game Records Newsgroups: rec.games.go,rec.games.backgammon,rec.games.chess.politics In-Reply-To: <95Oct23.134637edt.947@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> References: <46enrd$6g7@nntp4.u.washington.edu> Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Cc: Status: RO X-Status: Radford, Thanks for your comments. >There are some pretty big differences between Go moves and football >plays. For starters, the plays chosen are only a part of the football >game - execution is at least as important - whereas the moves are all >there is to the Go game. It's not the case that if you've reported the >sequence of plays, few people would be interested in watching the game >itself, whereas this is pretty much true for Go games. Secondly, the >choice of moves in Go is of a higher intellectual calibre, and perhaps >more importantly, the intellectual content is contained in the sequence >of moves, whereas the any deep thinking involved in the selection of >football plays cannot be discerned from the sequence of plays itself - >things like knowledge of the skills of the players involved, potential >injuries, current behaviour of the referees, etc. are all important. >A sequence of football plays therefore do not constitute an intellectual >creation intelligible to others, whereas the moves of a Go game do. Try to pass this argument on to a football strategist, and you will have strong disagreement. I have. >The problem with regarding Go games as uncopyrightable can be seen >by considering the following sequence of situations. > > 1) I make up a Go game entirely from my own imagination, and > publish it for the amusement of others. >It seems pretty clear that the game produced in (1) is copyrightable. No. Situation (7) is equivalent to a tournament game. If you think tournament games are not copyrightable, at which stage above do you think the ability to copyright is lost? (1). Game records are not copyrightable, even if played with yourself in private. See the other followup posts. I think this is a good thing. I would hate to have someone charge me $1 every time I played san-ren-sei. -Jared From @yonge.cs.toronto.edu,@neuron.ai.toronto.edu:radford@ai.toronto.edu Mon Oct 23 13:44:38 1995 Return-Path: <@yonge.cs.toronto.edu,@neuron.ai.toronto.edu:radford@ai.toronto.edu> Received: from mx5.u.washington.edu by saul5.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA25876; Mon, 23 Oct 95 13:44:21 -0700 Received: from yonge.cs.toronto.edu by mx5.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA26324; Mon, 23 Oct 95 13:44:19 -0700 Received: from neuron.ai.toronto.edu ([128.100.3.14]) by yonge.cs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <86526>; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:44:12 -0400 Received: by neuron.ai.toronto.edu id <887>; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:44:01 -0400 From: Radford Neal To: roach@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: Copyrighting Game Records Cc: radford@cs.toronto.edu Message-Id: <95Oct23.164401edt.887@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:43:58 -0400 Status: RO X-Status: A I don't see how (1) can possible be uncopyrightable. A non-random pattern of black and white circles on a grid would be copyrightable (or protectable in some way, I'm not sure of the technical details) if you called it Art. How can saying that it's a position in an imaginary Go game cause this protection to disappear? I don't think there's any danger of having to pay royalties every time you play san-ren-sei, any more than you have to pay royalties every time you play a C-G chord on the piano. A full game is like a full musical composition, in that there is a vanishingly small probability that anyone else would play the same game by chance. It's full games (or large portions of them) that would be protected by copyright, not fuseki patterns. Radford From @yonge.cs.toronto.edu,@neuron.ai.toronto.edu:radford@ai.toronto.edu Tue Oct 24 08:20:05 1995 Return-Path: <@yonge.cs.toronto.edu,@neuron.ai.toronto.edu:radford@ai.toronto.edu> Received: from mx5.u.washington.edu by saul5.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA08340; Tue, 24 Oct 95 08:19:53 -0700 Received: from yonge.cs.toronto.edu by mx5.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA28539; Tue, 24 Oct 95 08:19:52 -0700 Received: from neuron.ai.toronto.edu ([128.100.3.14]) by yonge.cs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <86528>; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:19:44 -0400 Received: by neuron.ai.toronto.edu id <878>; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:19:37 -0400 From: Radford Neal To: roach@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: Copyrighting Game Records Cc: radford@cs.toronto.edu Message-Id: <95Oct24.111937edt.878@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:19:35 -0400 Status: RO X-Status: A >> How can saying that it's a position in an >> imaginary Go game cause this protection to disappear? > > The protection, if there would not disappear. But it's likely > that BECAUSE your position was interpretable as a game of Go, then SINCE > Go games are not copyrightable, THEN your position would not be > copyrightable. This is a circular argument. I'm trying to demonstrate that your arguments for uncopyrightability of games are invalid. You can't refute me by just assuming they are. Anyway, the same thing clearly does not happen in other contexts. The sequence of actions that a real-life murder takes is not copyrightable, being simply news (though the particular expression of this sequence, ie, a news article, could be copyrightable). But repeating a sequence of actions by a *fictitious* murderer could be a copyright violation, if the sequence matches in detail that in another person's novel, even if the words have been changed a bit. (At least that's my understanding of how this works.) Hence whatever the validity of your argument that actual games played on a physical board are just historical events, and hence not copyrightable, it doesn't apply to games that are just invented out of my own imagination. > I think > however, it is impossible to define the exact point at which I would have > to pay you royalties. Move 3? Move 10? Move 25? Move 50? Since it is > not possible to define such a point, I do not think it is possible to > protect any game, no matter how "unlikely" it is that it would be > replayed. Exactly the same issue arises with a musical composition. Is it a violation to use the same 3 first notes as someone else's composition? The first 5? Etc. This hasn't prevented music from being copyrightable. Radford Neal From roach@u.washington.edu Sun Oct 22 22:49:08 1995 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 22:49:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Jared Roach To: Philip Waldron Subject: Re: Copyrighting game records In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Philip, Thanks! The Nihon Kiin story is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. Also: On Sun, 22 Oct 1995, Philip Waldron wrote: > Just to put one additional fly in the ointment about copyrighting > games played on the IGS, standard rules may not necessarily apply to > those games. I'm not sure if the case could be argued that the IGS is > not a public place and that one of the conditions for playing there would > be agreeing to give up any copyright rights. It seems to me like a > fairly flimsy case, but there could possibly be the implied understanding > sort of argument brought up. I didn't actually mention IGS in my post. :) I actually thought about this line of reasoning, and I think it might very well hold. On the other hand, since I am convinced game records are not copyrightable, it is moot. If they were copyrightable, then if both players agreed to surrender their copyright in return for playing on IGS, then that would seem to be legal. However, I don't seem to recall any such agreement as a requirement for playing on IGS, so again this is moot. --------------------------------------------------- "Better to play Go than to do nothing..." Jared Roach MD/PhD Candidate Department of Molecular Biotechnology University of Washington AGA 1d roach@u.washington.edu From roach@u.washington.edu Mon Oct 23 16:46:24 1995 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:46:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Jared Roach To: Radford Neal Subject: Re: Copyrighting Game Records In-Reply-To: <95Oct23.164401edt.887@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, Radford Neal wrote: > I don't see how (1) can possible be uncopyrightable. A non-random > pattern of black and white circles on a grid would be copyrightable > (or protectable in some way, I'm not sure of the technical details) if > you called it Art. Not if "I" called it art, but "The Law" called it art. And you have correctly identified the crux of the discussion here. Is a game of Go "art" under the laws of the USA? Canada? Japan? Korea? etc... >How can saying that it's a position in an > imaginary Go game cause this protection to disappear? The protection, if there would not disappear. But it's likely that BECAUSE your position was interpretable as a game of Go, then SINCE Go games are not copyrightable, THEN your position would not be copyrightable. IF it had artistic content above and beyond the mere position (i.e. it was an oil painting) then the painting but not the POSITION would be copyrightable. > > I don't think there's any danger of having to pay royalties every time > you play san-ren-sei, any more than you have to pay royalties every > time you play a C-G chord on the piano. A full game is like a full > musical composition, in that there is a vanishingly small probability > that anyone else would play the same game by chance. It's full games > (or large portions of them) that would be protected by copyright, > not fuseki patterns. I like this argument. It's one I was tempted to use. I think however, it is impossible to define the exact point at which I would have to pay you royalties. Move 3? Move 10? Move 25? Move 50? Since it is not possible to define such a point, I do not think it is possible to protect any game, no matter how "unlikely" it is that it would be replayed. The fact that a game has been played once greatly increases the chances that it will be played again. Pros often repeat a great many moves of previous games, for example in consecutive games of title matches. This is intentional on their part. Also, suppose someone came up with an unbeatable strategy (i.e. as in checkers). They could copyright it. This would be unreasonable and counterproductive. If such a law existed, which it doesn't, it should be changed. Replace "unbeatable" with "good" and the argument becomes quite general. --------------------------------------------------- Jared Roach Department of Molecular Biotechnology University of Washington, Room K354 Box 357730 Seattle, WA 98195 phone 616-4536 FAX 685-7301 roach@u.washington.edu From roach@u.washington.edu Tue Oct 24 13:21:46 1995 Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 13:21:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Jared Roach To: Radford Neal Subject: Re: Copyrighting Game Records In-Reply-To: <95Oct24.111937edt.878@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Radford Neal wrote: > >> How can saying that it's a position in an > >> imaginary Go game cause this protection to disappear? > > > > The protection, if there would not disappear. But it's likely > > that BECAUSE your position was interpretable as a game of Go, then SINCE > > Go games are not copyrightable, THEN your position would not be > > copyrightable. > > This is a circular argument. No. It starts with Go games being uncopyrightable and ends with a position of dots that represent a Go game being uncopyrightable. > I'm trying to demonstrate that > your arguments for uncopyrightability of games are invalid. You > can't refute me by just assuming they are. I am not assuming. I am asserting that the law of the United States of America is such that game records are not copyrightable. It then follows that your 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 argument, although valid, is peripheral to the central argument. The issue is whether or not (1) is copyrightable. > Anyway, the same thing clearly does not happen in other contexts. The > sequence of actions that a real-life murder takes is not copyrightable, > being simply news (though the particular expression of this sequence, > ie, a news article, could be copyrightable). But repeating a sequence > of actions by a *fictitious* murderer could be a copyright violation, > if the sequence matches in detail that in another person's novel, > even if the words have been changed a bit. (At least that's my > understanding of how this works.) Murder is illegal, and I doubt the copyright issue would be raised. In fact these situations have actually occured, and copyright was not the focus of the jury's attention. Better to stick with legal analogies, like dance, music, and choreography. > Hence whatever the validity of your argument that actual games played > on a physical board are just historical events, and hence not > copyrightable, it doesn't apply to games that are just invented out of > my own imagination. I think it would in a court of law. But one never knows. > > > I think > > however, it is impossible to define the exact point at which I would have > > to pay you royalties. Move 3? Move 10? Move 25? Move 50? Since it is > > not possible to define such a point, I do not think it is possible to > > protect any game, no matter how "unlikely" it is that it would be > > replayed. > > Exactly the same issue arises with a musical composition. Is it a violation > to use the same 3 first notes as someone else's composition? The first 5? > Etc. This hasn't prevented music from being copyrightable. True. But music and a Go game are different things. When I play Go and I decide that my best move is A4, I should be able to play there regardless of anybody's claim on copyright. This feels intuitively correct, and happily is currently the legal case. When I play a musical instrument and decide to play A4, it is not so clear that I have the right to play it if it was copyrighted. Thinking about this issue from "the interests of society" might help. One way to reconcile the "number of moves" issue is to suggest the "fair use" of music be around 10 notes, while fair use of Go be around 300 moves. There IS a difference between a game and an artwork. Or if a game is art, then between a game and most other forms of art. I agree that these differences are subtle, and that legal decisions are somewhat arbitrary. I feel unqualified to comment on the legal specifics beyond what I have already done. If you find out additional information from a lawyer, let me know. You might try some of the other follow-up posters, one of whom seemed particularly knowledgeable (I think it was one of the chess people). -Jared From TOMDORSCH@aol.com Tue Oct 31 21:43:01 1995 Return-Path: Received: from mx5.u.washington.edu by saul5.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA27455; Tue, 31 Oct 95 21:42:58 -0800 Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com by mx5.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA22449; Tue, 31 Oct 95 21:42:57 -0800 Received: by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08979 for roach@u.washington.edu; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 00:42:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 00:42:58 -0500 From: TOMDORSCH@aol.com Message-Id: <951101004258_94844364@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: roach@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: Copyrighting Game Records Status: RO X-Status: Jared- I'm probably missing a clarification. The "score sheets" are the property of the organizer, upon which the game records are scrawled. The game scores cannot be copyrighted, however the original sheets themselves are the tangible property of the organizer. I hope that makes some sense, if not more sense, and nothing I said in the prior paragraph should be construed to imply my agreement or endorsement of the policy therein stated. . Now I've completely confused myself! Regards, Tom From roach@u.washington.edu Mon Apr 15 16:55:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: from homer17.u.washington.edu by saulfs01.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.04/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA19506; Mon, 15 Apr 96 16:55:49 -0700 Received: by homer17.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.04/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA144030; Mon, 15 Apr 96 16:55:48 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 16:55:48 -0700 From: Jared Roach Message-Id: <9604152355.AA144030@homer17.u.washington.edu> X-Sender: roach@homer17.u.washington.edu To: roach@u.washington.edu Newsgroups: rec.games.go Subject: Ruminations on Game Records of Public Domain References: <01I3JW71HO2A986N3H@delphi.com> Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Status: RO X-Status: In article <01I3JW71HO2A986N3H@delphi.com>, wrote: >(As it happens, >I have read that scoresheets are not copyrightable in most countries, but >that scoresheets *are* copyrightable in a few countries, like Japan, which >is reached both by IGS and NNGS.) Are game records copyrightable in Japan or in some other country? They are not in the USA, and you seem unsure of Japan. To me, it seems there is only an issue if copying took place in a country where it was illegal. I was under the impression that there was no official ruling or law in Japan that game records were copyrightable, but that there was a certain custom of respect for not copyrighting games. Whether or not such a custom, or such a law, if it were to exist, is good or bad, positive or negative, yin or yang, is clearly debated as can be seen from the range of opinions voiced here. I find it wonderful that I live in a country with a strong tradition of freedom of speech and openness and sharing and loving one another; I welcome the legal embodiment of the principle that I cannot hoard the beauty of the records of the games that I play. They are indeed public domain. Transmitting them, copying them, or rebroadcasting them, immediately or throughout the future is a public service: a spreading of truth, a spreading of beauty, a sharing of that which belongs to all of us. A good act may be done with an intent to harass or bother, but I judge actions and not intentions. Insofar as bad intentions may portend future bad actions, they are to be condemned, but let us praise good actions and favors to the community (such as rebroadcasting) in the hopes that we may only see kindness between us in the future. If you want to make money off of your games, comment them, then copyright the comments. They're copyrightable. If the comments are good, I'll pay for the privilege of seeing the comments. If you want to copyright the score sheet, draw pictures on it, use nice calligraphy, and format it in a unique fashion. Then sell photocopies, if you can. But don't try to copyright the game record, and since you can't, don't fight a battle that can't be won by claiming that it is unethical. If you must, lobby your lawmakers to change the law (I'll lobby against you if you do). But unless you're into civil disobedience, abide by the law. I think it is a good law and should be loved, not hated. If I were IGS, I would smile and thank NNGS for spreading the good news - the game records that first appeared on IGS. I suspect however, that the hatreds generated are lifelong, personal, and cannot be repaired. Honor and the need to "win" the server war are at stake. Too bad. So many things in life are tragic. We seem to have our own little Yugoslavic tragedy and nothing can be done other than to live with the legacy. --------------------------------------------------- "Better to play Go than to do nothing..." Jared Roach, AGA 2D Seattle, WA roach@u.washington.edu http://weber.u.washington.edu/~roach/ From roach@u.washington.edu Sat May 4 10:38:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: from homer13.u.washington.edu by saulfs01.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.04/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA12601; Sat, 4 May 96 10:38:20 -0700 Received: by homer13.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.04/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA08862; Sat, 4 May 96 10:38:19 -0700 Date: Sat, 4 May 96 10:38:19 -0700 From: Jared Roach Message-Id: <9605041738.AA08862@homer13.u.washington.edu> X-Sender: roach@homer13.u.washington.edu To: roach@u.washington.edu Newsgroups: rec.games.go Subject: Re: Ruminations on Game Records of Public Domain References: <01I3JW71HO2A986N3H@delphi.com> <4kunm3$psi@nntp4.u.washington.edu> Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Status: O X-Status: Mitch Gunzler wrote: >I'm not sure I understand the logic here. You are missing the point completely. Go is logical. The laws of the United States of America are not (necessarily). I wouldn't search too deeply for the logic in the laws if I were you. >You believe that a game can be >a work of art, which others will benefit from seeing. You believe that if >the game is commented or calligraphed (instead of typeset?) then it is and >apparently should be copyrighted. Please note that these are not well described as "beliefs." They are facts about the laws of the United States of America. But you have the last bit wrong anyway. A *game record* is never copyrightable. The caligraphy, typesetting, and commentary surrounding it is. So if you add these elements to a game record, the total creation becomes copyrightable, but not to the extent that the underlying record is copyrightable. Others would be free to publish their own commentary with their own calligraphy and own typesetting of the same game record. >This strikes me as inconsistent. It makes as much sense as saying that a >painting is (or should be) protected only if it is signed. You should of course feel free to be struck in such a manner. Laws can be capricious. As it happens, paintings are copyrightable even if not signed. If you have a deep underlying need for a logical underpinning to the universe, I can tell you the reasoning of the creators of the copyright laws. Game records are considered to matters of historical record, and paintings are considered art. This is in a legal sense, as in a philosophical sense the game record may be artistic and the painting historical. Matters of historical record are not copyrightable. This includes things like who moved where and when on a military battlefield. Or, who moved where and when on a Go board. >Go professionals have many demands on their time, and provide a service >when they play a game of quality and present it to others. Why should they >not have the right to require payment for appreciating their creation? In a purely communist/communal setting one might find someone who would reject the utility of such payment. Not that I reject the utility of such payment, but it is important to realize that value systems are not universal, and there cannot be a simple single answer to your dilemma. Happily there are many ways a professional can make money other than by selling copyrighted game records. There has been far more said on copyrights in this newsgroup. I have most of them archived. I'll try to put them on my web site: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~roach/ This may take a couple of days, so be patient. This seems to be one of those discussions that the newsgroup keeps returning to and saying the same things things over and over again. >I think the debate has been driven by an underlying anger that IGS might >want to make money from their service. I understand *fear* of this, The IGS/NNGS thing is trivial. The true debate (IMHO) is about free speech, artistic creation, and freedom itself. --------------------------------------------------- "Better to play Go than to do nothing..." Jared Roach, AGA 2D Seattle, WA roach@u.washington.edu http://weber.u.washington.edu/~roach/ From roach@u.washington.edu Sun May 5 10:15:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: from homer10.u.washington.edu by saulfs01.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.04/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA07724; Sun, 5 May 96 10:15:25 -0700 Received: by homer10.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.04/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA48422; Sun, 5 May 96 10:15:22 -0700 Date: Sun, 5 May 96 10:15:22 -0700 From: Jared Roach Message-Id: <9605051715.AA48422@homer10.u.washington.edu> X-Sender: roach@homer10.u.washington.edu To: gunzler@netcom.com Subject: Re: Ruminations on Game Records of Public Domain Newsgroups: rec.games.go In-Reply-To: References: <4kunm3$psi@nntp4.u.washington.edu> <4mg4mb$p0g@nntp4.u.washington.edu> Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Cc: Status: O X-Status: >Without the attributions, I'm not sure if you are the poster I was responding >to. I believe that posting I replied to expressed emotional approval for >the putative liegal distinction they described and you repeat below. I was "the person." I prefer to describe my conclusions as logical, not emotional. >You have an odd opinion about the nature of copyright law if you are >comfortable describing these as "facts" without qualification! I don't think I have an odd opinion. >It has been the case that game records have not been accepted as works of >authorship iin the past, but I know of no particular case on record, and >I know that the Supreme Court has split 4:4 on related issues not too long >ago. First you state that you don't know of any particular case, then you state that you do. Your qualification "related issues" indocates that this last reference is probably irrelevent. >From this, and the underlying case for allowing professional sports >of the intellectual kind to protect their product just as the athletic >kind can protect transmission of their competitions, I suspect that the >issue is fair game for a challenge. It's true that anything can be challenged. You should note that legally sports games are also historical events and cannot be copyrighted. Films and broadcasts of the events can, of course. >I'm agnostic as to whether the Court >would indeed refuse to accept a game of Go as a mutual act of authorship >by the players. A recording of two musicians improvising ... I'm sure >you can come up with suggestive comparisons all day too. There *is* a difference between go and music. One can draw analogies all day long, but it doesn't change the difference. If you want to group things together, I think you can safely group chess and go. You can probably extend the analogy to all games and sports. I'd be hesitant to extend the analogy farther. >> If you have a deep underlying need for a logical underpinning to >>the universe, I can tell you the reasoning of the creators of the >>copyright laws. Game records are considered to matters of historical >>record, and paintings are considered art. This is in a legal sense, as in >>a philosophical sense the game record may be artistic and the painting >>historical. Matters of historical record are not copyrightable. This >>includes things like who moved where and when on a military battlefield. >>Or, who moved where and when on a Go board. > >Or, who brushed a canvas in what way with what pigments? Played an >instrument with what notes? Come on, you don't really think that this >*explains* the distinction, do you? You're either arguing just because you like to, or you haven't read my comments carefully, or you haven't thought about them, or you are choosing to purposefully misinterpret them. I apologize for being rude, but your aggressive and uniformed style is starting to annoy me. Btw, I always remain open-minded, even to low probability events. If you can actually come up with relevent court cases, I'd love to check them out. Best of luck in law and on the go board, Jared --------------------------------------------------- "Better to play Go than to do nothing..." Jared Roach, AGA 2D Seattle, WA roach@u.washington.edu http://weber.u.washington.edu/~roach/