Copyrighting FD files

[Free]

When you create a FD file, you put in a lot of time and efford to have a very detailed file of all your agreements. We all know that lots of people don't like to share their system because it might have great ideas for their opponents' problems (just to give you one reason). It's not very pleasant if someone else just downloads your file and starts to use it, even modify it and run away with your work and credits.

 

I'd like a feature installed where the creator of the FD file can specify if anyone can save the file on their computer. It probably needs just 1 more byte in front of the description, and some small modifications for the software. This way people would still be able to look at it if you play against them, but they can't just save (and abuse) it because the software wouldn't allow the download. I also think it would make FD more popular.

[hrothgar]

I made a somewhat similar suggestion to Fred via email a couple monthes back, however, I have a slightly different take on matters:

 

I agree that some people would like a download flag however, I don't think that its sufficienct to encourage any FD development and would almost certainly slow down FD adoption.

 

An argument can be made that a more comprehensive Digital Rights Management scheme might encourage commerical development of FD files. In an ideal world, an organization like The Bridge World might want to create a comprehensive FD file documenting Bridge World Standard (Alternatively, the EBU might want to create an FD file documenting "Standard English"). This file would remain resident on the BBO servers and never get downloaded to end users machines.

 

In conjunction with this, the Bridge World would define a list of users who would have the right to access the BWS Convention File. (its up to the Bride World how they would chose to create said list. Personally, I'd probably provide this for free to all current BWS subscribers, however, they might want to sell this as a separate service). This more comprehensive scheme would allow individuals to start to monetize the effort that they put in to developing system files which might create incentives for people to start developing some more comprehensive files.

 

I'd also argue that BBO should probably charge some kind of fee for hosting a system file on its server and for linking with the master list that the Bridge World maintains documenting all the user IDs that have the right to access the BWS convention file. I'm sure that there are a lot people out there who believe that they could create some money selling their system file. In practice, I suspect that the market for commercial system files will be limited to large membership organizations like the ACBL, the EBU, or the Bridge World which have a large membership base and a vested interest in promoting a standard bidding system. Its possible that some popular authors might also have a large enough "pull" in the market to seel a commerical product. For example, you might see Audrey Grant or Mike Lawrence creating a comprehensive system file to accompany some new book that they are selling.

 

Charging a fee to host FD files would allow BBO to recoup some dollars to compensate them for the additional development work necessary to support the new functionality. It would alos compensate for the variable costs required to support each new system file that BBO hosted. In addition, it would limit commerical FD development to entities who - for whatever reason - believe that they have a real chance of creating a significant revenue stream selling their Intellectual Property.

[Free]

I think you make a great point in a commercial point of view. But not everyone is willing to pay for some hosting service while a simple sollution is also possible. The distribtution of FD files with a copyright flag would not be as good as your method, but the files can easily be modified so someone can download it anyway. You decide who can get it and who not.

 

If they would make the changes you suggest, it will be a big effort for sure. My method would probably be a lot easier to impliment but all FD files currently existing should be modified for that 1 little flag... :angry: This might also cause some extra work for yellows or for the FD interface to be able to load different kinds of files.

[Gerardo]

sorry, don't follow.

Are CCs copyrighteable? would be surprised if so.

That would mean you can't use same methods as a pair who has a copyrighted CC.

 

In the same way, don't think FD files are copyrighteable, (as they are just CCs, just easier to copy than normal ones)

[Free]

CC's don't include FULL system details, while FD files do...

[hrothgar]

sorry, don't follow.

Are CCs copyrighteable? would be surprised if so.

That would mean you can't use same methods as a pair who has a copyrighted CC.

 

In the same way, don't think FD files are copyrighteable, (as they are just CCs, just easier to copy than normal ones)

Standards for copyright and patents vary dramatically across the world...

 

This is a dramatic over simplification, but traditionally well established economics have favored the most sweeping interpretations of intellectual property. Developing countries are often much more liberal. Case in point, when the US was developing as an industrial power back in the late 19th/early 20th century the country was notorious for stealing intellectual property. No a-day that we're on top of the heap we create perpetual copyrights for Mickey Mouse, patent obvious business models, and seize the bio-diversity legacy of third world nations.

 

Back at Sloan, MIT made sure that we listed to a couple long lectures about US copyright law. Based on this:

 

1. I don't think that it would be possible to patent a bridge bidding system. For example, Stayman couldn't patent a 2♣ response to a 1NT opening as asking for majors and license the rights to use this convention. (Please note: I'm quite certain that some people would claim that patents could be extended in such a manner)

 

2. A Full Disclosure File is a particular expression of a bidding system and embodies a large amount of creative work. Assuming that one was able to jump through the right set of hoops, it would be pretty easy to get a copyright placed on one.

 

To me, the most obvious example is that of a phone book.

 

Here in the US, its possible to copyright large databases like the phone book. You can't block third parties from creating their own database that contains the exact same information, however, you can prevent them from assembling this database by copying yours.

[mink]

I would never try to learn a system from a FD file. The reason is obvious: I would have to follow each possible bidding sequence and then have to guess the guiding principles according to which this file was coded. And probably I would find that some paths, though they could well happen, are not included. This is true especially for competive bidding; it is just too boring to click in everything what is possible.

 

I rather would look into some documentation prepared for a human reader. There are so many systems for which such information is available that decoding a FD file makes no sense to me, and therefore any copyright probably makes no sense, too.

 

For the same reasons I would not accept a FD file somebody else has created to be loaded when I play with him: I should look through every sequence in it in advance, and I am far too lazy for that. When opps have FD active I do not trust the explanations for this reason, but more often opps' FD is just useless for me because the first bid I would really like to know more about is usually not included in the file.

 

Karl

[hrothgar]

For the same reasons I would not accept a FD file somebody else has created to be loaded when I play with him: I should look through every sequence in it in advance, and I am far too lazy for that. When opps have FD active I do not trust the explanations for this reason, but more often opps' FD is just useless for me because the first bid I would really like to know more about is usually not included in the file.

I'm curious to understand what type of information you think is missing from existing FD files. (I certainly agree that some improvement is possible, however, the system as currently implemented is far from useless)

 

For example, lets look at the MOSCITO FD file: Here is the information provided whan I open 1♦ in first or second seat:

 

4+♥, might have a longer minor

~ 9 - 14 HCP if unbalanced

~ 13 - 14 HCP if balanced

 

Minimum Diamond length = 0

Maximum Diamond Length = 7

 

In addition to this specific information, you also have access to the system summary

 

MOSCITO = Strong Club, 4 card majors, and transfer openings

1NT = 11+ - 14 HCP

 

2/1 = natural and non-forcing Frequent use of relays

 

Assumed fit preempts

 

What other type of information needs to be included?

[pigpenz]

When you create a FD file, you put in a lot of time and efford to have a very detailed file of all your agreements. We all know that lots of people don't like to share their system because it might have great ideas for their opponents' problems (just to give you one reason). It's not very pleasant if someone else just downloads your file and starts to use it, even modify it and run away with your work and credits.

 

I'd like a feature installed where the creator of the FD file can specify if anyone can save the file on their computer. It probably needs just 1 more byte in front of the description, and some small modifications for the software. This way people would still be able to look at it if you play against them, but they can't just save (and abuse) it because the software wouldn't allow the download. I also think it would make FD more popular.

this all goes against your nickname B)

[barmar]

Here in the US, its possible to copyright large databases like the phone book. You can't block third parties from creating their own database that contains the exact same information, however, you can prevent them from assembling this database by copying yours.

IIRC, the decision that the court made about the phone book was that the raw data is not protected, just the creative aspects in the book itself. These include the page layouts and the artistic elements in advertisements. But they couldn't copyright the fact that it's in alphabetical order -- that doesn't require any human creativity, it's a simple mechanical transformation of the data.

 

BTW, the word is "copyright", as in the right to copy. "Copywrite" is what an author or editor does when he's creating something -- he writes a copy.

[hrothgar]

Here in the US, its possible to copyright large databases like the phone book.  You can't block third parties from creating their own database that contains the exact same information, however, you can prevent them from assembling this database by copying yours.

IIRC, the decision that the court made about the phone book was that the raw data is not protected, just the creative aspects in the book itself. These include the page layouts and the artistic elements in advertisements. But they couldn't copyright the fact that it's in alphabetical order -- that doesn't require any human creativity, it's a simple mechanical transformation of the data.

 

BTW, the word is "copyright", as in the right to copy. "Copywrite" is what an author or editor does when he's creating something -- he writes a copy.

Anyone who is really interet can look at the decision at

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm

 

As Barry notes, "arrangement" is key

 

[14] The originality requirement articulated in The Trade-Mark Cases and Burrow-Giles remains the touchstone of copyright protection today. See Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546, 561-562 (1973). It is the very "premise of copyright law." Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F. 2d 1365, 1368 (CA5 1981). Leading scholars agree on this point. As one pair of commentators succinctly puts it: "The originality requirement is constitutionally mandated for all works." Patterson & Joyce, Monopolizing the Law: The Scope of Copyright Protection for Law Reports and Statutory Compilations, 36 UCLA L. Rev. 719, 763, n. 155 (1989) (emphasis in original) (hereinafter Patterson & Joyce). Accord id., at 759-760, and n. 140; Nimmer § 1.06[A] ("originality is a statutory as well as a constitutional requirement"); id., § 1.08[C][1] ("a modicum of intellectual labor . . . clearly constitutes an essential constitutional element").

 

[15] It is this bedrock principle of copyright that mandates the law's seemingly disparate treatment of facts and factual compilations. "No one may claim originality as to facts." Id., § 2.11[A], p. 2-157. This is because facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship. The distinction is one between creation and discovery: the first person to find and report a particular fact has not created the fact; he or she has merely discovered its existence. To borrow from Burrow-Giles, one who discovers a fact is not its "maker" or "originator." 111 U.S., at 58. "The discoverer merely finds and records." Nimmer § 2.03[E]. Census-takers, for example, do not "create" the population figures that emerge from their efforts; in a sense, they copy these figures from the world around them. Denicola, Copyright in Collections of Facts: A Theory for the Protection of Nonfiction Literary Works, 81 Colum. L. Rev. 516, 525 (1981) (hereinafter Denicola). Census data therefore do not trigger copyright because these data are not "original" in the constitutional sense. Nimmer [p*348] § 2.03[E]. The same is true of all facts -- scientific, historical, biographical, and news of the day. "They may not be copyrighted and are part of the public domain available to every person." Miller, supra, at 1369.

 

[16] Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite originality. The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations through the copyright laws. Nimmer §§ 2.11[D], 3.03; Denicola 523, n. 38. Thus, even a directory that contains absolutely no protectible written expression, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for copyright protection if it features an original selection or arrangement. See Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 547. Accord Nimmer § 3.03.

[Free]

BTW, the word is "copyright", as in the right to copy. "Copywrite" is what an author or editor does when he's creating something -- he writes a copy.

Yeah, that's what I meant: copyright. Sorry for being distracted sometimes, and not having English as my native language... B)

[barmar]

Note the important requirement that the arrangement "features an original selection or arrangement". Since alphabetical order is extremely common, a typical phone book would not meet this criterion.

 

Getting back to the original topic, how can this be related to FD files? The arrangement is essentially dictated by the design of the FD application, so it's not original to the author of any particular file.

 

It's harder for me to decide about the selection criterion. In one sense, the choice of bids to include in the file is just the facts about your bidding system. On the other hand, the author typically has to decide how far to go in describing bidding sequences, which is an intellectual and creative act. Also, the text that accompanies many bids may not be simple boilerplate, and should be afforded protection.

 

Another way to look at this is by analogy. There's a book you can buy, I think it's called something like "Partnership Bidding Handbook". It's basically a list of many common conventions and treatments, with checkboxes that allow you to check the ones you use in your partnership. The book itself is obviously copyrightable, but I would argue that there's no additional protection afforded to your partnership's checked-off copy. There's creativity involved in coming up with your system, but not in simply checking off all the corresponding boxes.

[bid_em_up]

Note the important requirement that the arrangement "features an original selection or arrangement".  Since alphabetical order is extremely common, a typical phone book would not meet this criterion.

 

Getting back to the original topic, how can this be related to FD files?  The arrangement is essentially dictated by the design of the FD application, so it's not original to the author of any particular file.

 

It's harder for me to decide about the selection criterion.  In one sense, the choice of bids to include in the file is just the facts about your bidding system.  On the other hand, the author typically has to decide how far to go in describing bidding sequences, which is an intellectual and creative act.  Also, the text that accompanies many bids may not be simple boilerplate, and should be afforded protection.

 

Another way to look at this is by analogy.  There's a book you can buy, I think it's called something like "Partnership Bidding Handbook".  It's basically a list of many common conventions and treatments, with checkboxes that allow you to check the ones you use in your partnership.  The book itself is obviously copyrightable, but I would argue that there's no additional protection afforded to your partnership's checked-off copy.  There's creativity involved in coming up with your system, but not in simply checking off all the corresponding boxes.

Barmar, I am not sure what you are arguing "for" or "against".

 

The case here lies in taking an FD file, copying it (saving to your computer), and then using it as your own FD file. Most Internet cases that I am aware of, expressly prevent this. The work is the authors, and he has a copyright to it automatically. It is not (supposed) to be reproduced or reused without their consent to do so. eBay goes thru this all the time. Someone creates an auction, someone else steals it word for word, pics included and uses it for their own auctions. This is not allowed. (Unfortunately, it is also extremely difficult to prevent or prove).

 

However, the creator of the FD (or auction) file does not have a "patent" on it. It can be replicated by anyone who wishes to spend the time and energy to do so, and then they are free to use it. I can sit down and create my own auction listing, or FD card and then can use it for myself. If I happen to play the exact same system as the original author (or in the case of eBay, sell the same item), of course my FD card (or auction listing) would be the same as his (or at the least, very similar). But I cannot simply swipe, borrow, steal, a copy of his card (without his permission) to use as my own. I must create it myself.

 

Phone books and mailing lists are very similar. I cannot take a phone book and use the phone numbers contained within it to create my own phone book, no matter what the layout of the material may be.

 

However, usually there are other public domain sources of this information, where if I compiled my own list of phone numbers through these sources, I could then use them to create my own book. But I must create (or purchase through information providers) my own database of phone numbers, I cannot simply use the phone companies.

 

The same type of logic applies for mailing lists. Most mailing lists are compiled through either customer lists (in-store, catalog) or via rental lists (magazine subscribers, credit card owners, etc). When you are doing a mailing, you "rent" the name in most cases, for one-time use (or in some cases, multiple time usage). Once you have used a name for a mailing, it is "crossed" off your list, and cannot be mailed to again, unless you re-rent it for usage. But....if that person responds to your mailing, they are now considered to be your "customer", and their name can go on your own internal mailing list and you can then mail to that person as frequently as you wish, without paying for it again.

 

However, although I know you can save an "old" format CC, how would a person be able to (mis)appropriate an FD card? They cant actually bring it up (to my knowledge), can they? To the best of my knowledge, it is only active from the PC that has applied it, but not physically available for others to "grab" a copy of it.

[Free]

Everyone can just look at the CC (FD or old cc) and save the file on their computer (file -> save as...).

 

Your first paragraph actually says it all: the creator of a FD file has the copyright automaticly. Whatever is in the file is not copyrighted, hidden, secret,... but nobody should be able to just copy or use the file without permission of it's creator. That's the whole point, which has nothing to do with actual bidding agreements. I don't care if people want to play the same system, but I don't want people to save my days of work in a split second.

[barmar]

Barmar, I am not sure what you are arguing "for" or "against".

Neither am I. I see valid arguments for both, as it depends on how you view the process of creating an FD CC. Are you really "authoring" something, or merely "transcribing"? You only get copyright when you create something original. Someone listening to a speech and transcribing it into a written form does not have the copyright to it; so if creating an FD file is considered to be just converting system notes into another form, there may not be enough originality for a new copyright to apply.

 

On the other hand, it could be considered analogous to language translation of prose. This is generally considered a derivative work, where the original author and translator receive joint copyright because there are generally multiple ways to translate something, and the translator has to make creative decisions. So the question is whether there's enough creativity involved in translating a bidding system into FD to afford this type of protection, or is it too mechanical?

[bid_em_up]

Neither am I.  I see valid arguments for both, as it depends on how you view the process of creating an FD CC.  Are you really "authoring" something, or merely "transcribing"?]

 

Just curious, have you tried to create an FD from scratch? It is no easy task. I spent several hours messing around with the FD interface one evening before finally giving up in frustration.

 

For me to spend the amount of time required to "transcribe" MY systems notes into FD, only to have someone swipe it without my consent would be quite annoying. (Mind you, I probably would be happy to let them have it, if they just asked). I would not consider it to be transcription, in any sense of the word.

 

Another question, are you the author of your system notes? Usually. Therefore you would be the author of your FD as well.

 

[You only get copyright when you create something original.  Someone listening to a speech and transcribing it into a written form does not have the copyright to it; so if creating an FD file is considered to be just converting system notes into another form, there may not be enough originality for a new copyright to apply.

 

On the other hand, it could be considered analogous to language translation of prose.  This is generally considered a derivative work, where the original author and translator receive joint copyright because there are generally multiple ways to translate something, and the translator has to make creative decisions.  So the question is whether there's enough creativity involved in translating a bidding system into FD to afford this type of protection, or is it too mechanical?

 

Now this is where you might be mistaken. You appear to be confusing COPYRIGHT, with PATENT.

 

A copyright gives authors, artists and others the right to exclude others from using their works. Copyright definition from Websters: a person's exclusive right to reproduce, publish, or sell his or her original work of authorship (as a literary, musical, dramatic, artistic, or architectural work).

 

A patent gives someone exclusive ownership of an idea, invention, etc. so that it cannot be reproduced by anyone. Patent definition: A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time. 2) An invention protected by such a grant.

 

Technically, you would be in copyrigth violation for transcribing the speech in your example, unless you had been granted permission to do so by the speaker and/or speechwriter.

 

By no means do you hold a patent on your FD card. But it is an original work (piece of software) that required time and effort on your part to create it and technically is thereby copyrighted, imo. Note that works are copyrighted automatically, there is no need to apply for an actual copyright. However, if you were to intend to actually enforce a copyright to seek injunctions/monetary damages, then the actual copyright application should be filed. It also helps if you include the notations "Copyright mm/dd/yy by Author" or similar language.

 

 

A couple of sites with more info:

 

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

 

http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copynet.htm

[mink]

For the same reasons I would not accept a FD file somebody else has created to be loaded when I play with him: I should look through every sequence in it in advance, and I am far too lazy for that. When opps have FD active I do not trust the explanations for this reason, but more often opps' FD is just useless for me because the first bid I would really like to know more about is usually not included in the file.

I'm curious to understand what type of information you think is missing from existing FD files. (I certainly agree that some improvement is possible, however, the system as currently implemented is far from useless)

 

For example, lets look at the MOSCITO FD file: ...

Dear Richard,

 

I did not say that the information that FD files provide is generally useless for me. If you play a rather artificial system like MOSCITO the information is very useful indeed. But, astonishingly, I never happened to play against a MOSCITO pair. When I happen to play against a pair with a FD cc loaded (which occurs only rather seldom), and they play a natural system like 2/1, I get correct explainations for the first few bids that are not very enlightening as they more or less say that the bids are natural. But soon they bid something for which no explanation is displayed because the is not included in the FD file, though just the meaning of this bid would be interesting to me. This occurs earlier if the auction is competitive.

 

Take for example 4th suit forcing. Even in non-competitive auctions there are so many possible bidding sequences that I doubt all of them are included by more than a few FD authors.

 

Karl

[barmar]

Just curious, have you tried to create an FD from scratch? It is no easy task. I spent several hours messing around with the FD interface one evening before finally giving up in frustration.

 

For me to spend the amount of time required to "transcribe" MY systems notes into FD, only to have someone swipe it without my consent would be quite annoying. (Mind you, I probably would be happy to let them have it, if they just asked). I would not consider it to be transcription, in any sense of the word.

 

Yes, I've tried and given up on trying to make an FD file for a convention I use. However, I believe that copyright protection is not afforded simply for "sweat of brow". It doesn't matter how much work is involved, what matters is how much *creativity* is. For instance, compiling a census or performing a survey is hard work, and you might wish that you had exclusive rights to the results of this work; however, you don't get the copyright to the data you collected. However, if you write an analysis of the results, you would have copyright protection on that.

 

Technically, you would be in copyrigth violation for transcribing the speech in your example, unless you had been granted permission to do so by the speaker and/or speechwriter.

 

Copyright protection is only afforded to something once it has been written down or recorded. So you're correct if the speaker is reading a prepared speech. But if it's an extemporaneous speech, there's no copyright in the first place, so you can't violate the copyright.