Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
10:32 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Codex: Definition of Publication |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Jul 19, 2007 18:00]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [07-07-20] | Codex: Definition of Publication
===========================
this thread begins with out-of-topic posts after
http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?app=forum&act=posts&fid=xshowh&tid=177&pid=1148
Administrator
===========================
In case you don't remember what Harry Fougiaxis is talking about: [1]
http://www.sci.fi/~stniekat/pccc/codex.htm
QUOTE
Article 20 - Definition of Publication
(1) Publication of a chess composition consists of communicating it to the public (...)
(2) For the purposes of this Article, "communicating to the public" means enabling an unrestricted number of people to have the opportunity of access to a chess composition by
(...)
(c) showing it in transient form through a generally accessible medium (e.g. an electronic network). [22]
(...)
refering to following Footnote
QUOTE
22 Including the Internet and electronic mailing lists, but not e-mail.
[1] This refers to the postings in the old thread, see Administrator's note above
| | | (2) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Thursday, Jul 19, 2007 18:09] |
I don't know this paragraph, anyhow,
a) This is a forum of free chat, not a public place
b) Positions, versions, proposals of anykind can't be established as a composition.
c) To have an "original" you need the will of the composer(s) : to say it in few words a position is not a composition
d) If in any case the codex says something else, I have to know it quickly, it'll change my behavior.
e) I still feel free to publish a problem, even if I shew it first here.
| | | (3) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Thursday, Jul 19, 2007 18:18] |
Here is what I read :
Article 20 - Definition of Publication
(1) Publication of a chess composition consists of communicating it to the public, whether in permanent form (e.g. a document or a recording medium) or transient form (e.g. on a demonstration board or through an electronic medium).
(2) For the purposes of this Article, "communicating to the public" means enabling an unrestricted number of people to have the opportunity of access to a chess composition by
(a) presenting it in permanent form, or
(b) showing or using it in a lecture or solving tournament which falls within the categories listed in Annex I, or
(c) showing it in transient form through a generally accessible medium (e.g. an electronic network). [22]
(3) A chess composition which is first published according to paragraph (2) (b) above is entitled to priority from the date of that publication and is also eligible to compete in any composing tournament within the next two years.
it means that all that is said for protecting authors about the matter of anticipation the point (3) seems specialy clear.
Moreover, in our case
-the position of diagram to be choosen is not clear
-the name of authors is not clear
so what more ??
| | | (4) Posted by Uri Avner [Thursday, Jul 19, 2007 19:19]; edited by Uri Avner [07-07-19] |
A little common sense might help here, I hope.
For me, the will of the composer is all important as regards the question of official publication.
One can easily imagine a case where a position is published without the permission of the composer. What then?
As with so many human activities and artistic acts in particular, it is not the mere fact but the fact plus intention that count.
| | | (5) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, Jul 19, 2007 19:45]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [07-07-20] |
First, a remark that the note in paragraph (3) applies only to compositions shown during lectures or solving tournaments.
Imho, the Paragraph (2c) should be interpreted only for problems displayed in Problemesis, Microweb, Problem Online, Retro mailing list, etc., as originals by the composers themselves. I agree with you that the specific case should not be considered as falling in this paragraph. You already pointed out that these problems are in fact products of exchange of ideas and opinions during a discussion we have. On the other hand, a source like "Mat Plus Web Forum", for instance, sounds perfectly legitimate to me and it's a "descent compromise", I think.
Milan, could you please move the recent posts to a new thread? There's a danger we get out-of-topic here :)
| | | (6) Posted by Thomas Maeder [Thursday, Jul 19, 2007 22:12] |
QUOTE
There's a danger we get out-of-topic here :)
Definitely :-)
QUOTE
A little common sense might help here, I hope. For me, the will of the composer is all important as regards the question of official publication.
I agree that common sense can never hurt. However common sense was what caused the clause to be added to the Codex; the reason is that the authors (whoever they are) are to be protected from somebody stealing their work by "publishing" it under his/her name.
For this protection to work, the criteria that we use to decide whether a problem is published had better be as clearcut as possible. They certainly are clearcut enough for this problem to be considered published.
QUOTE
One can easily imagine a case where a position is published without the permission of the composer. What then?
It's published.
I think the problems that many people seem to have with this Codex is clause is that they consider it to be a burden. I.e. that they lose some rights with regard to the problem.
And as matters are today, they do in fact:
QUOTE
is also eligible to compete in any composing tournament within the next two years
This part of the clause is completely contrary to common sense, for two reasons:
* Now that many people have seen the problem, it wouldn't make any sense at all to let it compete in a formal tournament (where a judge doesn't know the composers of the participating problems)
* It isn't the PCCC's business to decide what problems have the right to compete in tourneys except for tourneys organised by the PCCC (currently, that would be the WCCT and the tourney for beginners); it would be helpful if the PCCC minded its own business here.
So let's consider the problem published, and let the authors and tourney organisers decide where it will compete.
| | | (7) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Jul 19, 2007 22:19] |
QUOTE
One can easily imagine a case where a position is published without the permission of the composer. What then?
Also see http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1184876322&app=forum&act=posts&tid=174&fid=gen&page=1, posting 24, where a similar case was asked by me.
| | | (8) Posted by Uri Avner [Friday, Jul 20, 2007 01:31]; edited by Uri Avner [07-07-20] |
@ Thomas
QUOTE
I agree that common sense can never hurt. However common sense was what caused the clause to be added to the Codex; the reason is that the authors (whoever they are) are to be protected from somebody stealing their work by "publishing" it under his/her name.
At least as much as chess problems are concerned, stealing is stealing no matter what.
If I show my problem/idea to a single person (not a "publication", right?) does it mean I'm granting him the license to steal?
The answer looks clear enough, and so anything beyond the 8th commandment - "Thou shalt not steal" - is redundant.
The indirect and artificial "protection" provided by the Codex is not only unnecessary, but seems to generate a confusion of its own...
| | | (9) Posted by Administrator [Friday, Jul 20, 2007 13:22] |
QUOTE
Milan, could you please move the recent posts to a new thread? There's a danger we get out-of-topic here :)
Done, 8 posts moved here.
| | | (10) Posted by Thomas Maeder [Monday, Jul 23, 2007 19:16] |
QUOTE
At least as much as chess problems are concerned, stealing is stealing no matter what.
Agreed. I don't understand what you intend to say with this statement, though.
QUOTE
If I show my problem/idea to a single person (not a "publication", right?) does it mean I'm granting him the license to steal?
No. Why are you asking this?
QUOTE
The answer looks clear enough, and so anything beyond the 8th commandment - "Thou shalt not steal" - is redundant.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." http://www.rateitall.com/t-3512-menckenisms.aspx
In this case, the problem is how to define "stealing". Because stealing implies intention, which is very hard to prove when a chess problem is the "swag" [not sure about this word]
QUOTE
The indirect and artificial "protection" provided by the Codex is not only unnecessary, but seems to generate a confusion of its own ...
I agree with you that it generates confusion; the unnecessary "Do not reprint!!" tags on the WCSC solution sheets are proof enough.
On the other hand, nothing seems more natural and direct to me than to consider a problem published when it is first shown to a public.
| | | (11) Posted by Uri Avner [Tuesday, Jul 24, 2007 01:58]; edited by Uri Avner [07-07-24] |
Hello Thomas,
I am a little bewildered by the questions you are raising. Don't you remember your own argument (quoted here again)?
QUOTE
I agree that common sense can never hurt. However common sense was what caused the clause to be added to the Codex; the reason is that the authors (whoever they are) are to be protected from somebody stealing their work by "publishing" it under his/her name.
All I said was that as long as "stealing" is concerned (see again your argument) then the clause in the Codex aiming at overcoming this problem is totally redundant and only serves to promote confusion (just look at our present debate...). The issue of theft, to my mind, is completely covered by the 8th commandment which provides no less protection to the author.
As to the more general question of priority, do we really wish to provide such an all-embracing shelter? According to the Codex, by showing my problem to a group of people (happens all the time) my priority is automatically secured. Now, should we like to encourage this problematic state of affairs? I wonder...
Returning to the issue of theft, simplicity is, to my opinion, our best strategy indeed. The fact that some simple solutions are wrong doesn't logically mean that everything simple is wrong. In fact, complicated solutions have a better chance to be wrong. So, let's keep it as simple as possible.
Does the non-simple (plus confusing) addition to the Codex provide protection against the majority of stealing instances related to chess problems? Not at all! For an obvious negative example, far from hypothetical I'm afraid, see my 2nd quoted paragraph by you (the 2nd one you couldn't see the point of). How do you protect against that if not by the "simple" (and most powerful) tool?
One further danger of a partial and artificially complex solution: it might lead to false beliefs about the legality of all theft cases not covered by the Codex. (-:
Elementary, my dear Thomas... or is it?
| | | (12) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Tuesday, Jul 24, 2007 02:22]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [07-07-24] |
A little offtopic, but what if the editor gets the same composition by two different people and publishes it one after another in different issues (instead of simply giving both names) [1]? You say, this doesn't happen? Well...
 (= 4+2 )
Emil Melnichenko, Schach ii.1996, p.79
and completely same but mirrored as:
Gunter Sonntag, Schach iv.1996, p.79
White to move and draw on both
However, they are both dualistic and anticipated by Kasantsev, 1926 and 1947-1948
Manfred Zucker (who was a brillant editor, by the way) said (in Schach viii.1996 p.79), it is bad luck for Gunter Sonntag, but the priority belongs to Emil Melnichenko whose position was published two months before. He said, it's a unique curiosity that may enter problem history.
However, in issue ix.1996 it was pointed out both were anticipated by Kasantsev. Let's assume they would not have been. What would then have been the case? Just bad luck for Gunter Sonntag or both as the author?
[1] I don't know if this was the case but it seems so since Zucker said, they got the same idea almost on the same time. Thinking there are so many different magazines AND it happened to both on the same time, the chance must be far from probable, but it still happened...
PS: Edited due to new material
| | | (13) Posted by Thomas Maeder [Monday, Jul 30, 2007 21:56] |
QUOTE
All I said was that as long as "stealing" is concerned (see again your argument) then the clause in the Codex aiming at overcoming this problem is totally redundant and only serves to promote confusion (just look at our present debate...). The issue of theft, to my mind, is completely covered by the 8th commandment which provides no less protection to the author.
I am not sure whether I should be as troubled about this as I am right now. When I read your first post about the 8th commandment, I thought (and hoped) that you were making a joke; apparently, you didn't.
Are you seriously saying that we should apply religious criteria to chess composition?
QUOTE
As to the more general question of priority, do we really wish to provide such an all-embracing shelter? According to the Codex, by showing my problem to a group of people (happens all the time) my priority is automatically secured. Now, should we like to encourage this problematic state of affairs? I wonder...
First of all, I think that it is important to have rules about priority. The Codex establishes such rules, and they work pretty well. If somebody thinks that (s)he has better rules, I'll be glad to think about them.
QUOTE
Does the non-simple (plus confusing) addition to the Codex ...
I agree that there is confusion, but I don't think that the wording of the Codex is the culprit; at any rate, it doesn't seem more confusing to me than any other text written in the Legalese language.
QUOTE
... provide protection against the majority of stealing instances related to chess problems? Not at all! For an obvious negative example, far from hypothetical I'm afraid, see my 2nd quoted paragraph by you (the 2nd one you couldn't see the point of). How do you protect against that if not by the "simple" (and most powerful) tool?
Well, this is an easy one: think twice before showing somebody your unpublished problems. We don't need any officially approved rules for that.
The not so easy situations arise when you are not in control of who gets to know your problem; it's for these situations that we need rules. And I think that the current wording of the Codex does that reasonably well.
What instances of theft (other than the one you mentioned) do you have in mind?
Those that I have in mind are reasonably covered.
QUOTE
One further danger of a partial and artificially complex solution: it might lead to false beliefs about the legality of all theft cases not covered by the Codex. (-:
That is an inherent problem in all rules, not only those of our small field; e.g. the more road signs we erect, the more dangerous are the places where none is erected. I am not convinced that the complexity of a rule is relevant for this phenomenon, though.
| | | (14) Posted by Uri Avner [Monday, Jul 30, 2007 23:31]; edited by Uri Avner [07-07-31] |
QUOTE
I am not sure whether I should be as troubled about this as I am right now. When I read your first post about the 8th commandment, I thought (and hoped) that you were making a joke; apparently, you didn't. Are you seriously saying that we should apply religious criteria to chess composition?
No, I was not joking, as I'm afraid you are not joking now.
And yes, I prefer the seemingly simple "religious" criterion, as you call it, to the confusing Codex one, surely for the case in question.
By the way, I didn't think that "theft" is a chess composition term, or is there a fairy piece called "thief" (just joking...)?
But I feel by now our discussion has reached a dead end, and so I'm suggesting a temporary cease-fire...
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Codex: Definition of Publication |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
