Should chess engines get asterisks for official testing?

[K I Hyams]

4. Whether competitors in tournaments containing the remix have been given the complete picture.

Here is where the analogy breaks down, there are no tournaments for remixed music. I think the Rybka case is unrelated to illegal MP3s in the internet, or ripping commercial songs from CDs and releasing them. So it's not an argument for "not testing an engine once it's found it's not original".

My answer was a direct response to the comment below, which had shifted the emphasis away from eligibility of derivatives in tournaments and towards general acceptability of derivatives.

Because it's not the same song, it's a remix. If the remix sounds so much better, why would I be happy playing just the original?

If you want an answer to the question of acceptability within tournaments, I would suggest trying to interpret the attitudes of those who write chess programs. Perhaps the attitudes of the majority of that cohort can be characterised as follows:

1. They are indifferent to private individuals setting up and posting the results of tournaments that contain derivatives.

2. They tolerate groups of amateurs such as CEGT setting up and publishing the results of tournaments that contain derivatives.

3. They are violently opposed to official events, accepting entries from engines that are derivatives.

If those assumptions are correct, I think that they are all reasonable attitudes.

[hyatt]

Why continue to play a song you know was ripped off of a CD that someone sells to make a living?

Because it's not the same song, it's a remix. If the remix sounds so much better, why would I be happy playing just the original?

Maybe because it is illegal???

Or does that not count. Every time a song is aired publicly, the author, the performer, the producer, the band, all get a royalty. For each CD sold, they all get a royalty.

Except for the ripoff folks that copy and steal and give to others...

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Why continue to play a song you know was ripped off of a CD that someone sells to make a living?

Because it's not the same song, it's a remix. If the remix sounds so much better, why would I be happy playing just the original?

Maybe because it is illegal???

Or does that not count. Every time a song is aired publicly, the author, the performer, the producer, the band, all get a royalty. For each CD sold, they all get a royalty.

Except for the ripoff folks that copy and steal and give to others...

Just to confuse matters further, it's actually legal in Germany. You can make a copy of a CD for personal use, you can lend CDs to friends who make copies of it, also for personal use. Mass distribution of copied music is, of course, illegal.

Anyhow, that's irrelevant to this discussion, but "law" isn't absolute or international.

jb

[hyatt]

I see no problem with lending a CD, as in lending a book. But to allow them to make a copy? Isn't that exactly what Napster was doing?

[Jeremy Bernstein]

I see no problem with lending a CD, as in lending a book. But to allow them to make a copy? Isn't that exactly what Napster was doing?

It's just a curiosity of German law, in which "personal use" trumps copyright enforcement. Thorsten can probably say more about where it comes from.

The Napster situation involves mass distribution (even if it's diffuse or p2p), so it's different.

[hyatt]

I see no problem with lending a CD, as in lending a book. But to allow them to make a copy? Isn't that exactly what Napster was doing?

It's just a curiosity of German law, in which "personal use" trumps copyright enforcement. Thorsten can probably say more about where it comes from.

The Napster situation involves mass distribution (even if it's diffuse or p2p), so it's different.

What if you had 10,000,000 friends?

[Jeremy Bernstein]

I see no problem with lending a CD, as in lending a book. But to allow them to make a copy? Isn't that exactly what Napster was doing?

It's just a curiosity of German law, in which "personal use" trumps copyright enforcement. Thorsten can probably say more about where it comes from.

The Napster situation involves mass distribution (even if it's diffuse or p2p), so it's different.

What if you had 10,000,000 friends?

The German tradition of paying for your friends on your birthday practically prevents such problems.

[Uly]

Maybe because it is illegal???

Remixes aren't illegal.

Actual case:

OCRemix

It's full of songs that were rearranged, and performed by fans of video game music, they aren't the same songs that you get when you buy the soundtrack, but they are nevertheless legal, and don't require licensing.

So I can make my own remix of the Mario Theme and upload it there or to NewGrounds, without breaking any laws.

My point here is that the analogy of "Rybka = Illegal song" doesn't hold.

[kingliveson]

Ratings lists to me function more as a research center dealing specifically with engine strength, and it is not in their place to put asterisks or question marks on programs -- that's the job of ChessVibes.

[hyatt]

Maybe because it is illegal???

Remixes aren't illegal.

Actual case:

OCRemix

It's full of songs that were rearranged, and performed by fans of video game music, they aren't the same songs that you get when you buy the soundtrack, but they are nevertheless legal, and don't require licensing.

So I can make my own remix of the Mario Theme and upload it there or to NewGrounds, without breaking any laws.

My point here is that the analogy of "Rybka = Illegal song" doesn't hold.

I do not believe that is correct. The _music_ itself is copyrighted as well. If you use it in a song of yours, you have to pay the author a royalty. How much? Negotiated with the copyright holder and likely based on sales and such.

You can't take a piece of music and keep the melody the same and change the words, or change the melody but keep the same words, or keep the same music and words and change the singer or arrangement, without a royalty, otherwise it is most definitely a problem. I've had friends that worked in the broadcast industry, and they complain bitterly about the logging requirements that make them log each song and the precise time/day it is played, for this very reason...

There is a lot of this that is done, because enforcement is difficult, and most remixes are "small potatos". But if you do a little googling, remixes are _not_ legal if they contain recognizable snippets of for sale recordings, and the RIAA is going after lots of the producers and having cops show up because copyright infringement is not only civil, but criminal.