rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (02/12/86)
In article <710@brl-smoke.ARPA> amsler@mouton.arpa (Robert Amsler at mouton.ARPA) writes: >I don't know enough about copyright law to answer this, nor do I >necessarily believe what we currently have as copyright law will >survive another 5 years, but the following possibility grows ever >nearer. > >If someone produces a parser (computer program) which they claim >reads in English text and outputs a conceptual data representation of >the ideas embodied in that text,[... ] and >generates another piece of text which is a paraphrase of the original >text---have they violated the copyright of the original author? >This assumes the first program read a machine-readable copy of the >first text, obtained with permission for its use, but not for its >redistribution. A sample precident would be when a musical is produced from a script. 'My Fair Lady' is a 'paraphrase' of 'Pygmalion'. In this case, a negotiated contract and royalty agreement with the heirs of G.B. Shaw provided the legal protection of both authors, publishers, and the producer. > >Or have I missed some critical aspect of the issue? > Most professionals who rely on copyright to protect their properties are members of guilds which have replaced the courts as a means of enforcing and collecting on those copyrights. Rather than sue an author or his publisher directly, the copyright has already been filed with the guild and even 'duplicate premise' may net the author a small royalty in spite of the fact that this is not well backed by legal precedent. >The answer to this may be critical to the information society in the >1990s when most of the textual information being produced in the >world is available electronically and AI software is routinely >performing content searches and reading text. A printed book will >then become akin to a listing of a program in its computational >utility. Yes, because should AI software begin to produce literary works, the creator of the software which produces these masterpieces would have to join the appropriate guild or face lawsuits from those guilds. Ironically, the software industry is very much opposed to a 'programmers guild'. They prefer the expense and publicity of legal battles and the 'non-disclosure agreement'. This is more a matter of a relatively new and immature industry than anything. Actually, the benefits of a guild can be many. For the individual programmer, who would be the actual holder of the copyright, there is the possibility of royalty checks that are immune to layoffs. For the software company or publisher, it would acutally result in a better profit line. For example: In music, the lyrics, melody, chord progressions, arrangement, orchestration, and perfomance are copyrighted as separate entities and are frequently done by separate people. The chance of accidental duplication is very high, especially in the area of chord progression. If every case was heard in a federal copyright court, the price of records would be about $100 for a top 40 single. Instead, these componants are registered separately with the appropriate guilds. An infringement notice is simpler than an insurance claim, and if there is even the slighted doubt, you get paid. Using the JOVE illustration posted earlier, the author used copyrighted routines of AT&T. The author also posted his version for use by AT&T source code liscencees. Rather than rewrite the code, as some hackers have done, the current publishers should have the option of paying AT&T, K&R, and anyone else involved, a royalty or percentage of the retail price. There should also be a reasonable limit on the maximum royalty of say 6% in case someone comes out of the woodwork and files a claim. There should also be reasonable minimum and maximum selling prices as well. The Author/Publisher partnership: Without the publisher, even the finest software would have little or no market value. Without the author, even the finest marketing organization would have little of value to sell. Both are at least morally entitled to fair and reasonable consideration. This is, in effect, the same as the 'star system' employed by film and television producers. In fact, did you know that 'body doubles' of famous actors actually pay a royalty to the star they impersonate (actually their employers do). Producers actually negotiate for the use of the star's face and body as a trademark. When you by a 'Star-Wars T-Shirt', the producers and the actors both get royalties. Something like a 'guild' already exists on this net. An author may post source or binaries for 'non-commercial use', and collect royalties from companies who use these items in commercial products. The formal collection procedure is difficult, because some authors and publishers tend to be unrealistic about royalties, but the option exists.