Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>/ ...
>>
>>
>>>>Total bullshit. This is uk.comp.os.linux, where we deal in UK law. A
>>>>compilation is a creative work in its own right based on the constituents
>>>>that have their own copyright concerns.
>>>
>>>This was *not* a UK law that we were dealing with, it was an
>>>international problem, with a UK firm claiming a violation in
>>>the US.
>>>
>>>Regardless, Bill Unruh is precisely correct. The creative work
>>>is protected, the compiled data is not. See FEIST PUBLICATIONS,
>>>INC. v. RURAL TEL. SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
>>
>>Then Bartlett's Quotations, a compilation of quotations copyrighted by
>>others, is not protected? Your case law doesn't apply as widely as you seem
>>to think.
>
>
> If you think we cannot quote the exact same remarks that Bartlett's does,
> you're wrong.
>

They only hold the copyright on _their_ work, not on the original
quotations.

If you OCR'd their work, reprinted and distributed it you would be
violating their copyright.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>So, you could derive your own fourier coefficients from the tide data.
>>>>
>>>>Only by repeating the field measurements, which take decades and which are
>>>>also copyrighted.
>>>
>>>Bullshit. "field measurements" can't be copyrighted. That's
>>>rediculous.
>>
>>"rediculous" -> ridiculous.
>
>
> Superfulous.
>

Are you trying to get around the copyright on certain words?

>
>>If they are, in legalese, "created in fixed form", and they are, they are
>>copyrighted from that moment by virtue of that act. Here is the evidence:
>>
>>http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc
>>
>>"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed
>>form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the
>>property of the author who created the work."
>
>
> So what. As noted previously in more than a couple of replies
> to this nonsense, the creative expression is copyrighted, not
> the information. That is, the typesetting, the format style,
> the colors, the page size, the headers, etc etc.
>
> The information (i.e., phone numbers or tidal data) are *not* in
> *any* way protected.
>
> This is *not* an unknown that people must guess about. It has
> been taken to court and there are court rulings on it, and case
> law for how to interpret those rulings.
>

The entire document is copyrighted, the data contained can be obtained
from elsewhere and published without infringing copyright. That data
cannot, however be copied from that document without infringing copyright.

This is the reason that publishers of dictionaries put deliberate
mistakes in their works. It makes it possible to prove that someone has
copied from thier work and not done the research.

Jamie Hart writes:
> The entire document is copyrighted, the data contained can be obtained
> from elsewhere and published without infringing copyright.

That is independent invention, which never infringes copyright.

> That data cannot, however be copied from that document without infringing
> copyright.

Yes it can. The data is not a protected element of the work.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Jamie Hart <theodorebronson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> So what. As noted previously in more than a couple of replies
>> to this nonsense, the creative expression is copyrighted, not
>> the information. That is, the typesetting, the format style,
>> the colors, the page size, the headers, etc etc.
>>
>> The information (i.e., phone numbers or tidal data) are *not*
>> in *any* way protected.
>>
>> This is *not* an unknown that people must guess about. It has
>> been taken to court and there are court rulings on it, and case
>> law for how to interpret those rulings.
>>
>
>The entire document is copyrighted, the data contained can be
>obtained from elsewhere and published without infringing
>copyright. That data cannot, however be copied from that
>document without infringing copyright.

That is simply WRONG.

The *expression* of that data is protected, not the data or the
method by which is derived or produced. The data can be copied
directly from *that* document, because the data is not protected.

>This is the reason that publishers of dictionaries put
>deliberate mistakes in their works. It makes it possible to
>prove that someone has copied from thier work and not done the
>research.

The information provided in a dictionary is work product, and is
clearly a creative expression by the copyright holder, not
merely a set of facts. (I.e., choice of words, phrases, and
examples, and the order in which they are arranged to describe
for each lexeme, is unique and creative.)

Telephone number and tide tables are a tabulation of mere facts,
and are not protected by the copyright. The creative aspects of
the document *are* protected; hence if you take a picture of the
page an publish it, that is a violation of the copyright. If
instead you copy to the numbers from the page, there is no
violation.

Since people seem unwilling to do basic research on this topic,
I'll post a few cites with quotes that generally explain it.

There is an excellent and authoritative discussion of copyright
law as it applies to databases at

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.htm

The following excerpts can be directly accessed via the
URL's cited:

No Separate Protection for Underlying Data: Although
databases may be protected as compilations under
U.S. copyright law, the underlying data is not automatically
granted protection. The Copyright Act specifically states
that the copyright in a compilation extends only to the
compilation itself, and not to the underlying materials or
data. 17 U.S.C. § 103(b). As a result, compilation copyrights
cannot be used to extend copyright protection to ideas or
facts that are otherwise unprotectable (it is a basic premise
of copyright law that there is no copyright protection for
ideas and basic facts, as is explained in the BitLaw section
on unprotected works).

Thus, a database of unprotectable works (such as basic facts)
is protected only as a compilation. Since the underlying data
is not protected, U.S. copyright law does not prevent the
extraction of unprotected data from an otherwise protectable
database. In the example of a database of presidential
quotations, it would therefore not be a violation of
copyright law to extract (copy) a quotation from George
Washington from the database. On the other hand, it would be
violation to copy the entire database, as long as the
database met the Feist originality and creativity
requirements.

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html#data

Links provided in the above paragraphs are:

17 U.S.C. § 103(b)
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/103.html#(b)

unprotected works'
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html#ideas

Feist
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html#Feist



From the "Fiest" cite,

According to the Supreme Court, the statute envisions that
some ways of selecting, coordinating, and arranging data are
not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection. In
applying this originality requirement, the Supreme Court held
that Rural's white pages were not selected, coordinated, or
arranged in such a way as to create an original work of
authorship. Rural's selection of listings--subscribers'
names, towns, and telephone numbers--was obvious and lacked
the modicum of creativity necessary to transform mere
selection into copyrightable expression. Arranging names
alphabetically in a white pages directory is so commonplace
that it has come to be expected.

From the "unprotected works" cite:

One consequence of the idea/expression dichotomy is that
there is no copyright protection in basic facts. ... It
makes no difference how much effort went into discovering a
particular fact. Even if it took two years of research to
discover a fact, the fact is still not protectable under
copyright laws. ...

From the "17 U.S.C. § 103(b)" cite:

The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends
only to the material contributed by the author of such work,
as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in
the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the
preexisting material. ...

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Tim Haynes <usenet-20041013@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> wrote:
>floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
>>
>> Because it just happens that the US Supreme Court has already decided,
>> *long* ago, that you cannot protect a list of numbers with a copyright.
>
>Who gives a fig what the US Supreme Court decides? Not applicable here
>without prior agreement.

If there is no prior agreement, what value does a UK copyright have in
the US? (None. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Zero.)

How are they going to enforce that?

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Juhan Leemet <juhan@logicognosis.com> wrote:
>
>Grr! I see. So, my having worked for a company that gathered and licensed
>data to compute and compile mariners' wind and wave charts, which they
>considered copyrighted, is merely speculation. Whereas you having read

Apparently it is speculation! (What I've seen indicates that Canada
has a very similar interpretation of copyright law as the US does,
but I certainly am not going to claim to know for certain.)

The UK, however, is significantly different in respect to database
protection, and has an entirely separate law which has no counterpart
in the US,

http://www.intellectual-property.gov...base_right.htm

>some US supreme court decision about phone numbers is to be considered
>unassailable legal opinion on the issue of use of British tide data?

No. I merely referenced that, as a point where you can begin to
do the research required to understand what is and what is not
protected by copyright law. That particular reference was cited
because it *clearly* refuted the Lutus claim that telephone
directories are copyrighted and therefore the numbers they
contain cannot be copied.

>I went back and read that it was Paul Lutus that had used some British
>tide data, and he reports that he was the one that was legally ordered to
>cease and desist by the copyright holders. You weren't there by any chance?

I have no argument with the facts presented in that paragraph.
That is indeed what Lutus initially said.

It was pointed out to Lutus (not by me) that the legality of
such cease and desist order is questionable. He said it wasn't.
The fact that telephone books are similar was pointed out to
Lutus, and Lutus said that is exactly the same and that every
telephone book in the country is copyrighted and the numbers
cannot be used. (Which is grossly incorrect.)

That is where I entered, pointing out that compilations of
telephone numbers are not protected by copyright and that it has
in fact gone to US Supreme Court which ruled on precisely that.
Which also clearly means that to the degree that tide tables are
the same as telephone numbers, they *are not* protected by
copyright. We could argue about whether they are or are not the
same, but that was stipulated by Lutus before the US Supreme
Court decision was cited.

>We are speaking from experience, whereas you are speculating on legal
>opinions. You are not a US supreme court judge that has ruled on British
>tide data are you? What qualifies you to generalize from rural US phone
>numbers to British tide data? Which court would hold juresdiction?

If the supposed violation is in the US, US courts will decide.
You can avail yourself of the citations I have provided if you
wish. You can also ignore them. I would recommend that if your
work and your livelihood depend on it that you had better seek
assistance from a qualified attorney that works in the field.

>If phone numbers are like tide data, why don't you phone up the next high
>tide and argue with it? I really don't see any logic in your arguments.

If that is the type of comparison you make, it is easy to see
why all of this is garble to you. Seek legal assistance,
because you clearly cannot form a anything close to a valid
concept of the discussion, much less reach a correct conclusion.

>> Not that anyone necessarily wants to actually take it to court
>> though! The correct action is to hire a copyright attorney, who
>> will research case law to determine how courts have ruled in the
>> same or very similar instances. The attorney will then provide
>> a "legal opinion", which may or may not be ambiguous. If it is
>> not, end of problem. If it is, then you have to weigh the
>> options against your pocket book... ;-)
>
>Actually, attorneys should already know how courts have ruled in similar
>incidents, else they would not be proper copyright attorneys. Maybe they
>would double check something if they are not sure.

Any lawyer who provides legal advice of any kind without doing
the research is committing an error that *will* lead to serious
negative consequences.

>Attorneys give "legal advice". Judges give "legal opinions". If your

In the strictest technical sense, that is true. It is also true
that what you ask an attorney to provide you is often called a
"legal opinion". That is not quite the same as what a judge
provides to explain a court ruling; it is a technical
description of all such court rulings that apply to the question
asked.

We can change what I said to "legal advice" if you like. That
does not change the significance of my point.

>attorney gives you bad advice, you can still get sued. You can then try to
>sue him, but good luck in finding a lawyer to take the case.

That is true. Of course any attorney who happily dispenses with
doing research might well enough find themselves disbarred
anyway...

You do know what law clerks and paralegals do, right? And why
law offices hire them...

>> However, Usenet is a place meant for discussion, and it actually
>> is reasonable to argue opinions on legal matters here. First
>> Lutus said telephone numbers are all protected by copyright, and
>> said they were the same as tide tables. Then he found out that
>> the US Supreme Court has specifically ruled regarding telephone
>> numbers, so now Lutus says they are different than tide tables,
>> and some of telephone directories are protected.
>
>I agree that we can discuss, even argue, but we seem at an impasse.
>
>Seems that Lutus was talking about tide data, from personal experience.
>Did you bully him into talking about phone numbers, so you could use your

I did not bring up telephone numbers. Lutus provided, in
addition to his rants about tide data, precisely the same
statements about telephone numbers.

>US supreme court case? I really don't see any relation between them.

Both are merely facts. There is nothing creative about a
telephone number or tide table entry. That makes them
unsuitable for protection under the copyright laws.

>> The simple fact is that Lutus is clueless.
>
>Ad hominem? How petty.

You don't understand what /ad hominem/ is either, do you? What
is the point of making such an ignorant statement? It may be
*insulting* to Lutus to have someone point out that he is
clueless, but it is 1) true, 2) it is a summation of the
evidence he has presented, and 3) is clearly an appropriate
factor in evaluating his conclusions stated here.

Look up /ad hominem/ somewhere more comprehensive than a pocket
dictionary, lest someone point out a comparison between you and
Lutus that is not complimentary to you...

>> Go to google and do a web search on these terms, "telephone
>> directory feist publications rural" and there will be any number
>> of 1) copies of the US Supreme Court Decision, 2) legal
>> descriptions of what it means, *and* 3) legal descriptions of
>> how it has affected case law since 1991.
>
>I have no interest in US court decisions on rural phone numbers.

Fine, but why are you here discussing US law if you have no
interest?

>> The question about tide tables isn't really very complex at all.
>
>You have offered not a shred of information about tide tables (which
>incidentally are a compilation and _more_ likely to be copyrightable) or
>tide data. You have been yammering about rural phone numbers. Yawn.

I've pointed you and others at the appropriate documents and
topics to research this. I'm not going to repeat that, nor am I
going to post the huge volume of information available on the
topic. Here is one URL that might help you,

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html

>Tell you what. Why don't you take over where Paul Lutus left off. Put up
>the web site that uses the tide data that the British copyright holders
>protested about. Let's see if you get sued? Got the stones for it? Try

Having the stones is what makes one right or wrong?

>selling some photocopied atlases (earth data, right?). Try selling some
>photocopied dictionaries (just words, right?). Hell, all books are just
>words, so by your argument they cannot be copyrighted? Wait a minute...

The fact that *you* don't see the difference is unremarkable.
Courts do.

>Generally speaking if someone is selling some work, they tend to take
>serious exception to someone else horning in on their action. What makes
>it even worse, as in the case of the company that I worked for, some of
>that data was actually purchased or licensed from other suppliers. We had
>data feeds from a number of government and private organizations. It cost
>yearly or monthy fees to get that stuff, to even get started in computing
>and compiling the wind and wave charts. We sent out crew on ships to drop
>measuring buoys into the ocean, and collected data from them. So someone
>has paid for collecting data and you think it should automatically be
>free? to everyone? OK, so everyone stops paying, and no one has any?

What I and/or you think of whether that should be free is of no
consequence whatever. The Berne Convention is the basis for
copyright law in the US, and is the basis for any agreements
between the US and the UK on copyright. The US implantation of
copyright *clearly* disregards virtually everything you have
outlined above as significant.

The US Supreme Court *clearly* stated that "sweat of the brow"
does not lead to copyright protection. It makes no difference
how long it took to produce those facts, how expensive it was,
how much work was involved, or who paid for it.

That is *distinctly* different from UK "database right" law, but
that does not apply in the US.

>FWIW, Sun Microsystems, Inc. was prevented from calling their NIS (Network
>Information Service) by the name of "Yellow Pages" because British
>Telecommunications plc had a trademark on that name. So the Brits have

Copyright and trademark are two very different things. So is a
patent.

>legal teeth and claws that reach USA as well. Personally, I think it was
>petty of British Telecom, since there could have been no confusion. Sun

I believe that BT had no choice. It was *clearly* using the
perception of "yellow pages" that the telephone industry had
developed. With trademark violations it is fairly simple that
if you allow Joe, then Jane can do it to, and so can everyone
else. If the next infringement caused actual harm, but the
perpetrator could show that BT had ignored Sun...

>have been getting their revenge by publicising how petty they were in
>every reference explaining why NIS is not called "Yellow Pages". 8^)
>
>I'm done. Getting boring, uninteresting, and I'm not learning anything.

Then do some research and do learn something.

>p.s. You heading into eternal night up in Alaska? You above the line?

Barrow is the farthest north incorporated city in the world.
There are other places farther north where people visit, but
they are transient, while Barrow is a permanent population
center (and has been for many hundreds of years) where people
are born, live their entire lives sometimes, and are buried in
the local cemetery.

The sun will set on November 18th and not be seen directly again
until January 23rd. Note that does not mean "eternal night".
It gets light enough for at least some twilight every day.
(Compared to summer, when it is in fact daytime 24 hours a day.)

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Jamie Hart <theodorebronson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote:
>>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>
>>>Then Bartlett's Quotations, a compilation of quotations copyrighted by
>>>others, is not protected? Your case law doesn't apply as widely as you seem
>>>to think.
>> If you think we cannot quote the exact same remarks that
>> Bartlett's does, you're wrong.
>>
>
>They only hold the copyright on _their_ work, not on the
>original quotations.
>
>If you OCR'd their work, reprinted and distributed it you would
>be violating their copyright.

Exactly. The arrangement of the quotes, and formatting of the
paragraphs and pages, is all protected creative product.

Which is to say that if you edited what you've OCR's
sufficiently to remove all creative product added by the
copyright holder on the compilation, what remains is not
protected. (Note that sufficient editing would also almost
certainly require either additional quotes mixed in, or
deletions of a significant number of quotes from any one given
compilation.)

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Floyd L. Davidson writes:
> The Berne Convention is the basis for copyright law in the US...

No. The basis for copyright law in the US is Article I, Section 8,
Clause 8 of the US Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries

The distinction is important because the purpose of US copyright is
different from that of European author's right. Congress has amended US
copyright law to bring it into alignment with Berne (a mistake, IMO) but
there are limits. For example, were Berne to be amended to require that
copyrights never expire, the US could not ratify the change.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:21:54 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Juhan Leemet <juhan@logicognosis.com> wrote:
>>
>>Grr! I see. So, my having worked for a company that gathered and licensed
>>data to compute and compile mariners' wind and wave charts, which they
>>considered copyrighted, is merely speculation. Whereas you having read
>
> Apparently it is speculation! (What I've seen indicates that Canada
> has a very similar interpretation of copyright law as the US does,
> but I certainly am not going to claim to know for certain.)

Web sites you cite seem to clearly cover my previous company's wind and
wave chart books under the provisions of a compilation. Thank you for
confirming my "speculation". Can we now consider that to be a fact?

> The UK, however, is significantly different in respect to database
> protection, and has an entirely separate law which has no counterpart
> in the US,
>
> http://www.intellectual-property.gov...base_right.htm

Interesting document. Not particularly surprising, because I remember some
furor years ago about protecting data in on-line databases. How to prevent
someone from looting your database, copying it, and selling advertising
(one of the only real ways to make money from web sites) on their own
site. I notice there is a paragraph in that web page:

"Protection equivalent to database right should exist in other countries
in the European Economic Area but not necessarily in the rest of the
world, although all members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) do have
an obligation to provide copyright protection for some databases."

The US is a member of WTO, as is Canada, and GB. Do you live up to your
obligation to provide database copyright protection? You go your own way?

[snippage]
>>I went back and read that it was Paul Lutus that had used some British
>>tide data, and he reports that he was the one that was legally ordered to
>>cease and desist by the copyright holders. You weren't there by any chance?
>
> I have no argument with the facts presented in that paragraph.
> That is indeed what Lutus initially said.
>
> It was pointed out to Lutus (not by me) that the legality of
> such cease and desist order is questionable. He said it wasn't.

You can question almost any legal advice or even opinion and fight it all
the way up to your supreme court if you have enough $. Is that relevant?
Practically speaking Paul Lutus was prevented (bluffed?) from using it.

> The fact that telephone books are similar was pointed out to
> Lutus, and Lutus said that is exactly the same and that every
> telephone book in the country is copyrighted and the numbers
> cannot be used. (Which is grossly incorrect.)

FWIW, I had a look at our local telephone book. I see many trademark
identifications but no copyright. However, I still don't think you can
generalize to tide tables from phone numbers. Also, there are ancillary
issues with phone numbers:

1) phone numbers are only useful if/when they are disseminated
2) phone books are out of date even as they are published
3) cost of reproducing any part of a phone book would make in not worth it
4) reproducing/propagating phone books enhances the phone company business

These are not directly legal considerations, but they would affect
decisions on whether to pursue anyone for copying (parts of?) phone books.

I have done work for telephone companies, and have talked with their staff
on many DP issues, including some legalities. There may also be a legal
question as to "who owns a phone number". They are assigned by a local
phone company. They are managed (for billing, services, etc.) in computers
of phone companies. However people pay for their service (which includes a
phone number) and could argue that they are leasing it. As above, for
phone numbers to be useful, other people have to know them. I suspect that
might put them "in the public domain", or the lessor (subscriber) requests
that they be (unless they pay extra to have them "unlisted").

You keep repeating "the fact that telephone books are similar" [to tide
tables]. Cite your other sources please. You rejected Lutus's statements
about copyrightable phone books. You can't just arbitrarily pick and
choose statements and use them as you please. If you invalidated your
source, then other statements by that source are also questionable and
need confirmation. I do not accept that tide tables are similar to phone
books. I actually happen to know something about how the data are
gathered, prepared, and published in both cases. Do you?

You cannot just argue (as you have) that it doesn't matter how the data
get there, because then you are claiming that NO compilation is covered.
You yourself have allowed that some (unqualified) compilations are
covered. Reductio ad absurdum! (since you like Latin so much)

> That is where I entered, pointing out that compilations of telephone
> numbers are not protected by copyright and that it has in fact gone to
> US Supreme Court which ruled on precisely that.

OK, granted, but I still dont accept the generalization to tide tables.

Ah! It probably won't make any difference to you, but I think this does
point out (to me) the difference between compilations of phone numbers and
other compilations. I do recall something to the effect that simple
mechanical or automatic collation/assembly (i.e. probably what you are
referring to as "sweat of the brow") does not differentiate expressions
viz. copyright law. There has to be some kind of "value added" (my words).
In the case of tide tables, I happen to know that there is "value added".

> Which also clearly means that to the degree that tide tables are
> the same as telephone numbers, they *are not* protected by
> copyright. We could argue about whether they are or are not the
> same, but that was stipulated by Lutus before the US Supreme
> Court decision was cited.

Where is it said that tide tables are the same as telephone numbers? You
also seem to shift between tide datum (which is also a derived value) and
tide tables (which are compilations). Which is it? Both? Either? Neither?

You may be over generalizing. A tide datum (like high tide at 7:43pm),
even though that is computed and derived, can clearly can be looked up (in
someone's table) and used by anyone. That is what it is for. You could say
it falls under "fair use", like quoting a section from a work. Usually,
there are implicitly agreed user agreements, before you can even see them.
This is sort of like M$ EULA: by breaking the plastic seal you agree! Such
user agreements usually restrict your rights to use and esp. propagation.

The entire table (e.g. page 43 of someone's computed tide prediction
tables) I still believe to be copyrightable or protectable (as a
compilation, thank you!). Tide tables are NOT the same as phone books,
where every phone number is effectively independent, just thrown in a bin.
Prediction of tides is a service for hire. Nature does not automatically
give you tide tables, else no one would bother to compute them. As I said
before, they are indirectly derived data, from observation and calculation.

>>We are speaking from experience, whereas you are speculating on legal...
>>...to British tide data? Which court would hold juresdiction?
>
> If the supposed violation is in the US, US courts will decide. You can
> avail yourself of the citations I have provided if you wish. You can
> also ignore them. I would recommend that if your work and your
> livelihood depend on it that you had better seek assistance from a
> qualified attorney that works in the field.

Always good advice. I would say likewise. You cannot just assume everyone
else's data is free for taking, and duplicating, and propagation.

>>> Not that anyone necessarily wants to actually take it to court though!
[snipped bickering about what consitutes "legal opinion"]
> ...Of course any attorney who happily dispenses with
> doing research might well enough find themselves disbarred
> anyway...

Not that easy. You'd have to prove something more than mere incompetence.

> You do know what law clerks and paralegals do, right? And why
> law offices hire them...

<cynic>Yeah, so lawyers can bill clients without doing the work! Been
there, paid that. You cannot get a clear billing, and there is no point
arguing with an arguer (lawyer), esp. if you still need legal work.</cynic>

[snippage]
>>US supreme court case? I really don't see any relation between them.
>
> Both are merely facts. There is nothing creative about a
> telephone number or tide table entry. That makes them
> unsuitable for protection under the copyright laws.

OK, that is where we differ. I happen to know what is involved in
producing tide tables. Maybe you don't? The tide data are not just hanging
on trees out there waiting to fall to the ground. You have to make
observations, and then do calculations on them, and make local
corrections. This is not just "turning the crank" or "sweat of the brow"
(like some plough horse). It is not engineering a 747, but it is science.

>>> The simple fact is that Lutus is clueless.
>>
>>Ad hominem? How petty.
>
> You don't understand what /ad hominem/ is either, do you? What
> is the point of making such an ignorant statement? It may be
> *insulting* to Lutus to have someone point out that he is
> clueless, but it is 1) true, 2) it is a summation of the
> evidence he has presented, and 3) is clearly an appropriate
> factor in evaluating his conclusions stated here.
>
> Look up /ad hominem/ somewhere more comprehensive than a pocket
> dictionary, lest someone point out a comparison between you and
> Lutus that is not complimentary to you...

So now you are insinuating that I am clueless, too? Nice! Well, let
everyone else (the world) make their own determination. Boy, you really do
come across as an arrogant, argumentative, petty individual don't you. You
can have a discussions (over a beer) with most people. I think you would
be wearing the beer(s) with most of the discussions with people here.

and I do know what "ad hominem" means. I actually took a few years of
latin in early high school. You say things are "true" (because you say
so?), and then make disparaging insinuations about people. Trying to
divert attention from the facts to impugn the character of someone
presenting an argument is an "ad hominem" approach (if not an outright
attack). Seems very popular in recent US politics, and common elsewhere.

[snippage]
>>I have no interest in US court decisions on rural phone numbers.
> Fine, but why are you here discussing US law if you have no interest?

We were talking about British tide tables. You were trying to divert to US
rural phone numbers. Why is everyone supposed to be discussins US law in
an international newsgroup? You were bringing up US law viz. British data.

>>> The question about tide tables isn't really very complex at all.
>>
>>You have offered not a shred of information about tide tables (which
>>incidentally are a compilation and _more_ likely to be copyrightable) or
>>tide data. You have been yammering about rural phone numbers. Yawn.
>
> I've pointed you and others at the appropriate documents and topics to
> research this. I'm not going to repeat that, nor am I going to post the
> huge volume of information available on the topic. Here is one URL that
> might help you,
>
> http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
>
>>Tell you what. Why don't you take over where Paul Lutus left off. Put up
>>the web site that uses the tide data that the British copyright holders
>>protested about. Let's see if you get sued? Got the stones for it? Try
>
> Having the stones is what makes one right or wrong?

It seems to go a long way in adversarial legal systems. Consider M$? IBM?

>>selling some photocopied atlases (earth data, right?). Try selling some
>>photocopied dictionaries (just words, right?). Hell, all books are just
>>words, so by your argument they cannot be copyrighted? Wait a minute...
>
> The fact that *you* don't see the difference is unremarkable. Courts do.

You're still arguing that tide tables (data?) are just like phone numbers.

>>Generally speaking if someone is selling some work, they tend to take
>>serious exception to someone else horning in on their action. What makes
>>it even worse, as in the case of the company that I worked for, some of
>>that data was actually purchased or licensed from other suppliers. We
>>had data feeds from a number of government and private organizations. It
>>cost yearly or monthy fees to get that stuff, to even get started in
>>computing and compiling the wind and wave charts. We sent out crew on
>>ships to drop measuring buoys into the ocean, and collected data from
>>them. So someone has paid for collecting data and you think it should
>>automatically be free? to everyone? OK, so everyone stops paying, and no
>>one has any?
>
> What I and/or you think of whether that should be free is of no
> consequence whatever. The Berne Convention is the basis for copyright
> law in the US, and is the basis for any agreements between the US and
> the UK on copyright. The US implantation of copyright *clearly*
> disregards virtually everything you have outlined above as significant.

Do you think that others are obliged to spend time and money to provide
free (derived) data for your enjoyment? That seems to be a rather arrogant
view. If you actually forced this by some (bizarre) courtroom drama, the
consequence would be that no one would do it! You would have NO data,
unless you increase your taxes so that your own government does it. Are
you a big government advocate? That would be unusual in the US.

OK, by analogy, we put some people in a studio, turn on recorders, record
sound waves (natural data?). Suppose you surreptitiously record (sound
waves in nature?) a "star" singing "Happy Birthday" (royalties!?) and try
to sell that. You would argue that those are not copyrightable? Hell, even
samples of recordings (data?) are being argued as copyrightable. It is not
so clear as you seem to imply, or it would not be argued in the courts.

> The US Supreme Court *clearly* stated that "sweat of the brow" does not
> lead to copyright protection. It makes no difference how long it took
> to produce those facts, how expensive it was, how much work was
> involved, or who paid for it.
>
> That is *distinctly* different from UK "database right" law, but that
> does not apply in the US.

Your examples do not show that as being so different. The British web page
on database copyright also mentions them considered as compilations. Your
other web page says that US law also recognizes compilations.

>>FWIW, Sun Microsystems, Inc. was prevented from calling their NIS
>>(Network Information Service) by the name of "Yellow Pages" because
>>British Telecommunications plc had a trademark on that name. So the
>>Brits have
>
> Copyright and trademark are two very different things. So is a patent.
>
>>legal teeth and claws that reach USA as well. Personally, I think it was
>>petty of British Telecom, since there could have been no confusion. Sun
>
> I believe that BT had no choice. It was *clearly* using the perception
> of "yellow pages" that the telephone industry had developed. With

but Sun was selling computer systems, not providing telephone services.
Are you saying that everyone named Wendy now have to change their name?
Parents can no longer name any daughters Wendy? There are already cases of
identical names being used in different contexts or different industries.
The guiding principle seems to be to protect intellectual property and
prevent confusion of the public. Zilog tried to trademark the letter Z.
Good thing it wasn't snatched from the alphabet. Kinda useful sometimes.

> trademark violations it is fairly simple that if you allow Joe, then
> Jane can do it to, and so can everyone else...

I agree that there is precedence at issue. BT could have come to an
agreement with Sun and licensed the name, but were they holding out for
windfall $? Dunno. FWIW, Sun did license GUI from Xerox PARC, which ISTR
is more than Apple or M$ ever did. Sun are honourable in that way.

oh, and IANAL (EE degree)

--
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.