Should chess engines get asterisks for official testing?

[tomgdrums]

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 thought we went over this.

Melody is copyright protected. Harmony isn't.

So if Vas (or the Houdini guy) used the "melody" from another engine then that would be analogous to cloning. If all Vas (or the Houdini guy) used was the "harmony" (VERY BASIC building blocks) of another engine then that would not be cloning. That is they music analogy works.

I would leave it to computer experts to decide what is melody and what is harmony in a computer engine.

But the music analogy does work.

[Uly]

But if you do a little googling, remixes are _not_ legal if they contain recognizable snippets of for sale recordings

From Wikipedia:

"There are two obvious extremes with regard to derivative works. If the song is substantively dissimilar in form (for example, it might only borrow a motif which is modified, and be completely different in all other respects), then it may not necessarily be a derivative work (depending on how heavily modified the melody and chord progressions were). On the other hand, if the remixer only changes a few things (for example, the instrument and tempo), then it is clearly a derivative work and subject to the copyrights of the original work's copyright holder."

The remixes from my link are close to the former, they were made from scratch (based on the original songs), as long as the arrangement is original (they don't allow "recognizable snippets of for sale recordings" on their site), the remixer retains the copyright.

That's just proof that legal remixes can exist, "Rybka = Illegal song" doesn't hold if it's an "original arrangement".

[hyatt]

I have not heard of a "remix" that doesn't copy parts of songs. If you change the melody, and the arrangement, and the singer, and the words, that's not a remix. The remixes I hear are often complete songs burned to a single CD with some sort of theme. Often with stuff inserted between them (record companies sometimes "join" songs like that with a rapper providing the "filler"...

But how can it be a "REmix" if nothing is copied? The term then becomes meaningless. "REmix" means to take a bunch of parts and mix them up in a different or unusual way. Hence the "re"...

[Uly]

Example case:

Original song: Creative Exercise (Mario Paint):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-3cBXlvwe0

Remix: Intense Color.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u22qCUEgigU

The whole thing has been changed (save for the beginning and end, that are quite similar to the original material, but still not snippets from the original song), but it's still a remix (the notes are the same) and legal.

Now, I can't compare this case with the Fruit-Rybka case, because Rybka is not a song.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Example case:

Original song: Creative Exercise (Mario Paint):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-3cBXlvwe0

Remix: Intense Color.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u22qCUEgigU

The whole thing has been changed (save for the beginning and end, that are quite similar to the original material, but still not snippets from the original song), but it's still a remix (the notes are the same) and legal.

Now, I can't compare this case with the Fruit-Rybka case, because Rybka is not a song.

I like the original better.

In the music world, there are (at least) two kinds of copyright: performance rights and mechanical rights. When your band plays a cover of, say, "Blitzkrieg Bob", you are supposed to pay the publisher of the Ramones music performance royalties for using their tune (the sheet music, as it were -- the "idea" that is the song, however you perform it). When your band produces a song utilizing samples from "Blitzkrieg Bob", you are supposed to a) ask permission and b) pay the publisher of the recording you used for the right to use _that_ recording. Those are the mechanical rights.

If you make a cover of "Blitzkrieg Bob" using samples from a recording of "Blitzkrieg Bob", you would have to pay both kind of royalties. And when a restaurant plays your version, they have to pay your publisher performance rights for publicly exhibiting the work (typically collected by a collective such as GEMA, ASCAP, BMI, etc.).

I have no idea how Nintendo handled copyright of the music used in Mario Paint. Presumably it was royalty-free (Nintendo purchased all rights to the music from the composer (possible in the US, not possible in Europe, no idea in Japan). As to whether the remixes being posted on YouTube are, strictly speaking, legal, I have no idea. But I can't imagine that any lawyer thinks it would be lucrative to go after "MuffinzAndPiez" to collect performance rights for the Mario Paint Song.

But in fact, none if it is really relevant to software copyright, except for the commonality that you're not supposed to do any copying without paying for it (or getting permission, or using royalty-free sources).

jb

[Uly]

I like the original better.

I can't blame you, it's one of my favorites Mario series song. However, that remix is also one of my favorites, I referenced it because it's one of the most radical remixes I've heard, some Mario Paint fans have problems recognizing the tune! Being better than the original isn't a goal of remixes (specially when the song's genre becomes entirely different and you can't compare them).

Presumably it was royalty-free (Nintendo purchased all rights to the music from the composer (possible in the US, not possible in Europe, no idea in Japan).

It's not just this tune, I could have used as an example any from this page:

http://ocremix.org/games/

Or from this one:

http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/list/12
(there are countless sites for video game remixes)

So it's not just Nintendo or Mario Paint.

But I can't imagine that any lawyer thinks it would be lucrative to go after "MuffinzAndPiez" to collect performance rights for the Mario Paint Song.

They don't need to go after the remixer, just after the site that holds the material. And OCRemix and Newgrounds haven't been filed with a lawsuit, because their content falls under Fair Use. It would be illegal if they Ripped the music from commercial CDs and hosted them in their site, or if they hosted remixes that don't change the arrangement, but what they hold there remains a copyright of the remixer, and is licensed to the site (as soon as the song is uploaded - They have judges that check that the files don't violate the original song's copyright, those that do get rejected).

But in fact, none if it is really relevant to software copyright

Agreed! That's what I've been trying to argue all along, since Rybka is not a song, making analogies with pirated songs (if Rybka was identical to Fruit, but it isn't) or remixes doesn't work in principle.

[tomgdrums]

Example case:

Original song: Creative Exercise (Mario Paint):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-3cBXlvwe0

Remix: Intense Color.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u22qCUEgigU

The whole thing has been changed (save for the beginning and end, that are quite similar to the original material, but still not snippets from the original song), but it's still a remix (the notes are the same) and legal.

Now, I can't compare this case with the Fruit-Rybka case, because Rybka is not a song.

I like the original better.

In the music world, there are (at least) two kinds of copyright: performance rights and mechanical rights. When your band plays a cover of, say, "Blitzkrieg Bob", you are supposed to pay the publisher of the Ramones music performance royalties for using their tune (the sheet music, as it were -- the "idea" that is the song, however you perform it). When your band produces a song utilizing samples from "Blitzkrieg Bob", you are supposed to a) ask permission and b) pay the publisher of the recording you used for the right to use _that_ recording. Those are the mechanical rights.

If you make a cover of "Blitzkrieg Bob" using samples from a recording of "Blitzkrieg Bob", you would have to pay both kind of royalties. And when a restaurant plays your version, they have to pay your publisher performance rights for publicly exhibiting the work (typically collected by a collective such as GEMA, ASCAP, BMI, etc.).

I have no idea how Nintendo handled copyright of the music used in Mario Paint. Presumably it was royalty-free (Nintendo purchased all rights to the music from the composer (possible in the US, not possible in Europe, no idea in Japan). As to whether the remixes being posted on YouTube are, strictly speaking, legal, I have no idea. But I can't imagine that any lawyer thinks it would be lucrative to go after "MuffinzAndPiez" to collect performance rights for the Mario Paint Song.

But in fact, none if it is really relevant to software copyright, except for the commonality that you're not supposed to do any copying without paying for it (or getting permission, or using royalty-free sources).




jb

Hi Jeremy,

I actually think it is fairly relevant. Many people maintain that there are certain pieces of code or algorithms that will be in almost any engine. They are the building blocks or accepted norm. Well, every song has harmony (chord structure) and harmony is not copyright protected. Harmony is expected in (most) every song. So two songs can have the same harmony.

Melody however IS copyright protected. Melody is the order and rhythmic arrangement of notes. Songs can not have the same melody.

As I have said many times before computer chess just needs to figure out what is the harmony (accepted norms) and what is the melody (the things that make it special) of chess engine development. Once they do that, the cloning issue become easier.

[Uly]

Songs don't need to be decompiled to check their arrangement. An experienced judge can hear if the melody is the same and that the song violates copyright just by listening to it. It takes minutes.

The Rybka analogy does not work. The Rybka analogy does not work. (broken record) People listened to the song for 5 years, and nobody noticed it was the same "melody" of the Fruit song.

That's a really huge difference! Checking if a song violates copyright doesn't require months of investigation.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

If you want to create metaphors to make the situation easier to understand, that's fine. But the actual legality of music vs. software is significantly different, and your metaphor doesn't hold water: Ray Parker Jr. was "successfully" sued by Huey Lewis, for instance, for using the chord structure (harmony) of Lewis' "I Want a New Drug" for Parker's "Ghostbusters". Actually, they settled out of court, but Parker was going to lose, I guess. Similarly with Joe Satriani and Coldplay, more recently: http://andyontheroad.wordpress.com/2009 ... y-settles/. There are plenty of other examples: melody, harmony, rhythm.

Some of the dumb comments from the peanut gallery on that site recall some of our friends at Rybkaforum (how can you convince your grandma in Peoria that something was stolen). But anyway: stealing the harmony isn't any better than stealing the melody, unless the harmony is something so ordinary, so used-to-death, that it doesn't belong to anyone anymore (public domain harmony, if you will). If the harmony is the "identity" of the song (think of Smells Like Teen Spirit or Heart-Shaped Box by Nirvana, for instance -- unmistakable harmonic progressions), you're going to get sued if you steal it.

I seem to remember that Claude Debussy accused Maurice Ravel of plagiarizing his work (and vice versa) but I can't remember and can't find a reference. Those complaints were (if they existed) based on tonality, not even a specific chord progression, but the harmonic language in its entirety.

Anyway, I personally prefer to keep software and music separate. I think that these sorts of metaphors obscure the specific issues unique to each form.

Jeremy

[tomgdrums]

Songs don't need to be decompiled to check their arrangement. An experienced judge can hear if the melody is the same and that the song violates copyright just by listening to it. It takes minutes.

The Rybka analogy does not work. The Rybka analogy does not work. (broken record) People listened to the song for 5 years, and nobody noticed it was the same "melody" of the Fruit song.

That's a really huge difference! Checking if a song violates copyright doesn't require months of investigation.

First of all I am not just talking about Rybka. So you can leave that alone. I am talking about engine cloning in general. Think bigger picture.

And IF you would just look at the bigger picture of my point you would notice that it does indeed work as an analogy. In fact if the chess engine community had had the forethought to actually think of what would be the accepted norms in almost any engine the cloning thing would not be an issue, because there would have been standards set in place.

And I am not talking about remixes or anything like that. I am talking about the actual piece of composed music.