In a message dated 3/10/2008 5:18:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, oldakquill@gmail.com writes:
Aside from the issues of database and collative copyright, how copyrightable is an identifier of the form 74-82-8?>>
--------------------- Facts are not copyrightable. Facts enjoy no copyright protection.
That George Smith married Susan Brown is a fact no matter how many years some wank took to figure it out. Once they did, and published a 500 page book detailing all the work they endured to do it, and on the last page concluded "and so we now know that her maiden name was Brown..." it's now a fact and the copyright to that fact does not exist.
That CAS has assigned a number to a chemical is a fact, and that number as a fact, enjoys no copyright.
Copyright accrues to the artistic effort of the verbage contained within a work. The copyright is to the 500 page book and its contents, not to specific facts therein. Specific pieces of text, even if not facts, can always be cited and enjoy no exclusionary copyright protection on themselves individually.
Will Johnson
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:11 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That CAS has assigned a number to a chemical is a fact, and that number as a fact, enjoys no copyright.
I have recorded a song digitally, and as such it is a really long number. It is a fact that that number represents my song and uniquely identifies it. Now go tell the courts that you can distribute that number to whomever you please.
I don't disagree with you on this point, but it's not a particularly strong argument you make.
On 10/03/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:11 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That CAS has assigned a number to a chemical is a fact, and that number as a fact, enjoys no copyright.
I have recorded a song digitally, and as such it is a really long number. It is a fact that that number represents my song and uniquely identifies it. Now go tell the courts that you can distribute that number to whomever you please. I don't disagree with you on this point, but it's not a particularly strong argument you make.
You've raised and demolished a straw man here. CAS cannot in fact claim copyright on the numerical match, and if they pushed it people would leave them en masse.
- d.
David Gerard you wrote:
On 10/03/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:11 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That CAS has assigned a number to a chemical is a fact, and that number as a fact, enjoys no copyright.
I have recorded a song digitally, and as such it is a really long number... I don't disagree with you on this point, but it's not a particularly strong argument you make.
You've raised and demolished a straw man here. CAS cannot in fact claim copyright on the numerical match, and if they pushed it people would leave them en masse.
It's not just a straw man, it's a straw man in left field. Whatever CAS is claiming and whatever the legal merits of their claim are, they are *not* claiming that we can't put individual CAS numbers on individual web pages.
On 10/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Whatever CAS is claiming and whatever the legal merits of their claim are, they are *not* claiming that we can't put individual CAS numbers on individual web pages.
Mmm. We're hitting something strangely akin to a lot of the problems we have with BLPs - individual bits of information that no-one objects to, but when aggregated by a third party suddenly become a lot less uncontentious.
I have no idea how we can deal with it, but the analogy seems worth noting.
On 10/03/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Whatever CAS is claiming and whatever the legal merits of their claim are, they are *not* claiming that we can't put individual CAS numbers on individual web pages.
Mmm. We're hitting something strangely akin to a lot of the problems we have with BLPs - individual bits of information that no-one objects to, but when aggregated by a third party suddenly become a lot less uncontentious.
I have no idea how we can deal with it, but the analogy seems worth noting.
We don't actually hit a problem for another ~3000 numbers.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:24 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:11 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That CAS has assigned a number to a chemical is a fact, and that number as a fact, enjoys no copyright.
I have recorded a song digitally, and as such it is a really long number. It is a fact that that number represents my song and uniquely identifies it. Now go tell the courts that you can distribute that number to whomever you please. I don't disagree with you on this point, but it's not a particularly strong argument you make.
You've raised and demolished a straw man here. CAS cannot in fact claim copyright on the numerical match, and if they pushed it people would leave them en masse.
Apparently I don't know enough about this to comment then, and I should probably bow out of the discussion with whatever shred of dignity I have left. :)