The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[coloin]

I won't support your work, if I knew you intend to keep
the result secret or claim copyright on that sudoku.
Just in principle, not that I'd assume there were a 16 around.

-Guenter

I would tell you first !

But.....I am not in it for the money.. be reassured...

Q. Why am I in it then ?
A. Glory and the challenge. I think.

BTW thanks for the spread of the grids - you do work quickly.
Did you win the comp ?

Regards and thanks

Colin

[tso]

do they claim copyright for the sudokus in the book ?

Yes. I'll double check if they make it clear that the copyright covers the book as a whole or if it also covers the individual puzzles in each page.The copyright thing is, well -- I can't copyright the letter "d", or the word "dog" ... but I can copyright a novel. Where the line is not cut and dry. Exactly where that line is in a particular case -- learned people might disagree and resort to settling it in court.

How many notes must I string together before I can call it a song? The fact that I may have created that song with computer program without human intervention will be unlikely to make a difference one way or another. What about Jonh Cage's 4'33?

Can I copyright a Haiku that has fewer alphanumeric charactors than a Sudoku? If so, why? Draw the line. If I write a computer program that spits out haikus -- do you think I'll have any trouble copyrighting them, horrid as they may be?

I believe it is the *selecting* of which haikus or sudokus that make it into your publication that allow the law to uphold copyright. I don't think Argus or Wayne would have much chance claiming copyright on puzzles that an end user creates using their own personal legally obtained copy of Simple Sudoku or Pappocom Sudoku.

Jackson Pollacks paintings and reproductions of these paintings are clearly protected, though they were clearly painted in a random way, simply splashing, squirting and spilling paint on the canvas. We'll never know how many of these paintings weren't paintings at all, but merely dropcloths that he had on the floor to protect his carpet -- but his manager couldn't disginguish them from the real thing. If the truth comes out -- it will not matter.

Why should this construction be unprotectable:

Code: Select all

+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . 1 5 | . . 8 | . 4 . |
| . 2 . | 5 . 9 | . 7 . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . 3 . | 8 . 7 | 4 . . |
| . 4 . | 9 . 5 | 1 . . |
| . 5 . | 6 . 1 | 3 . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . 6 . | 1 . 2 | . 9 . |
| . 7 3 | . . 6 | . 2 . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+


... while this Haiku that has only a few more charactors, is:
Furuike ya (An old pond)
kawazu tobikomu (a frog jumps in)
mizu no oto (sound of the water)

The number of notes required two be identical in two songs to lead to a successful infringement case is not set -- but it isn't very many. A musical note can be represented by an integer. Fewer intergers are required to match up for a successful infringement case than there are in a Sudoku.

I cannot copyright a single integer -- or can I? The movie "Casablana" can be reduced to digital form and represented by a single large integer. In fact, the DVD of the movie is essentially this. Can I ethically sell this integer without permission?

can a sudoku be "created" as an artwork ? I'd say, they can only be discovered like other math-entities,e.g. large primes etc.

I think that’s just opinion and you are entitled to it. Copywrite and all the other types of intellectual property protection is NOT based in logic -- its just a legal construct that changes with time and location. We cannot prove logically that one thing should or should not be protected and to what degree. It's just what the legal system eventually decides upon, for what are usually political reasons, not logic. I could take an the postion that no one should be allowed to own land -- that the idea of owning land is as absurd as owning the stars in the sky. And it is.

My point about the Sudoku books isn't that they shouldn't be allowed to exist, merely that they are trash.

I thought we were through this already. Euler contributed to latin squares considerably. Probably more than anyone else before him and centuries after him. Sudokus are very similar to the problem of completing latin squares with holes. So there is clearly SOME connection.

Two points:
Euler used existing Latin Squares to create to create Graeco-Latin Squares:

Graeco-Latin Square aka Euler Square -- each digit and letter appear in each row and column. Each digit-letter combination is used once:

Code: Select all

1a 2b 3c
3b 1c 2a
2c 3a 1b


... which is what he was refering to in his tract "A New Kind of Magic Square."

There is certainly NO connection between the Euler Square and Sudoku. Sudoku’s are NOT based on nor do they use in any way, Euler Squares.

Clearly, Sudoku's are related to Latin Squares in that the solutions are Latin Squares. But Euler did not invent them -- it doesn’t matter how much he studied them -- there is no basis for the claims that some books and newspaper articles make -- that he invented Latin Squares and in some cases, that he invented Sudoku. Sudokus in NO WAY are based the *results* of any of his work, only the *raw material* that was already there.

The Latin Square is a red herring. One could create a sudoku-like puzzles with a different solution pattern -- say each digit appears in each row, column and box twice -- or no constraints on number of digits per group, but constraints on how close the digits may be to each other (1's must be 1 space apart, 2's two spaces apart, etc). These puzzle also exist.

[tso]

"vast minority"

You have a funny way of going on about that for someone with a thread about a "variety of variants".

I don't understand your point.

[PaulIQ164]

I don't understand your point.

Well, what else can variants be other than a variety?

[dukuso]

>dukuso wrote:
>do they claim copyright for the sudokus in the book ?
>
>
>Yes. I'll double check if they make it clear that the copyright
>covers the book as a whole or if it also covers the individual
>puzzles in each page.The copyright thing is, well -- I can't
>copyright the letter "d", or the word "dog" ... but I can
>copyright a novel.

..only if it contains creative work. If you just put sentences
together randomly by computer, following some grammatics and
then call each collection of 4 sentences a poem, I doubt that
it can be copyright.

>Where the line is not cut and dry. Exactly where that line is in
>a particular case -- learned people might disagree and resort to
>settling it in court.

A sudoku has less than 81 digits.
That would be just a sentence in a novel.

>How many notes must I string together before I can call it a song?

ahh, yes. You caught my complexity argument here.
But are the notes of a song copyright ?

>The fact that I may have created that song with computer program
>without human intervention will be unlikely to make a difference
>one way or another. What about Jonh Cage's 4'33?

it might make a difference, if you can't somehow distinguish it from
other pieces generated by computer. An how difficult it is, how
long the computer needs, whether the used program is public domain.
I think, you can't copyright random noise.

>Can I copyright a Haiku that has fewer alphanumeric charactors
>than a Sudoku? If so, why? Draw the line. If I write a computer
>program that spits out haikus -- do you think I'll have any
>trouble copyrighting them, horrid as they may be?

what's a Haiku ? Why not just generate numbers ?

>I believe it is the *selecting* of which haikus or sudokus
>that make it into your publication that allow the law to
>uphold copyright.

where is the creative work when you choose a random sample of them ?

>I don't think Argus or Wayne would have
>much chance claiming copyright on puzzles that an end user
>creates using their own personal legally obtained copy of
>Simple Sudoku or Pappocom Sudoku.
>
>Jackson Pollacks paintings and reproductions of these paintings
>are clearly protected, though they were clearly painted in a
>random way, simply splashing, squirting and spilling paint on
>the canvas. We'll never know how many of these paintings weren't
>paintings at all, but merely dropcloths that he had on the floor
>to protect his carpet -- but his manager couldn't disginguish
>them from the real thing. If the truth comes out -- it will not matter.

hmm, I never heard about this. Was it really entirely random,
or only with some random elements ?

>Why should this construction be unprotectable:
>Code:
>
>+-------+-------+-------+
>| . . . | . . . | . . . |
>| . 1 5 | . . 8 | . 4 . |
>| . 2 . | 5 . 9 | . 7 . |
>+-------+-------+-------+
>| . 3 . | 8 . 7 | 4 . . |
>| . 4 . | 9 . 5 | 1 . . |
>| . 5 . | 6 . 1 | 3 . . |
>+-------+-------+-------+
>| . 6 . | 1 . 2 | . 9 . |
>| . 7 3 | . . 6 | . 2 . |
>| . . . | . . . | . . . |
>+-------+-------+-------+

when you restrict on sudokus with certain properties, then the danger is,
that there could be only some few. Then it's a discovery or a
mathematical filtering or a theorem : there exists a xxx with property
yyy. proof: look at this ...

>... while this Haiku that has only a few more charactors, is:
>Furuike ya (An old pond)
>kawazu tobikomu (a frog jumps in)
>mizu no oto (sound of the water)

that's a Haiku ? That's all ? Are you saying a novel writer
has to pay for each old pond in the novel ??

>The number of notes required two be identical in two songs to
>lead to a successful infringement case is not set -- but it
>isn't very many. A musical note can be represented by an integer.
>Fewer intergers are required to match up for a successful
>infringement case than there are in a Sudoku.
>
>I cannot copyright a single integer -- or can I? The movie
>"Casablana" can be reduced to digital form and represented
>by a single large integer.

that would be an integer with 1e10 digits (!) while a sudoku has 81.

>In fact, the DVD of the movie is essentially this. Can I
>ethically sell this integer without permission?

when you just sell it as an integer and don't print on the cover
or advertise otherwise that it's the movie it should be allowed.
(but who would buy it ?)

suppose you could copyright integers. Then there must be a
smallest copyrightable integer. What is it ?

and then claim copyright
on it later nevertheless ?

>dukuso wrote:
>can a sudoku be "created" as an artwork ? I'd say, they can
>only be discovered like other math-entities,e.g. large primes etc.
>
>I think that’s just opinion and you are entitled to it.

you can't deny that they are _very_ similar to other
entities which are commonly used in math, i.e. QWH-instances.
And indeed much more alike QWH-instances than to anything
from your examples which went from novels through songs,
paintings,Haikus to movies. A sudoku is none of these.
But a sudoku _is_ a QWH-instance. A sudoku _is_ a 81-digit
number or an array from _M_9,9(Z_9) in the typical encoding
when stored on a computer.
"Generating" or solving sudokus is very similar to generating
or solving QWH-instances. And it's much different from the way
how you consume novels,songs,paintings,Haikus or movies.
I claim that my opinion when I compare them with QWH-instances
is better than yours, when you compare them with movies.
I can't see how you could consistently allow copyright on
sudokus but forbid copyright on QWH-instances = sudokus
without boxes-constraint.

>Copywrite and all the other types of intellectual property
>protection is NOT based in logic -- its just a legal construct
>that changes with time and location. We cannot prove logically
>that one thing should or should not be protected and to what
>degree.

still the judges and lawyers are doing exactly this
and charge money for it.

>It's just what the legal system eventually decides upon,
>for what are usually political reasons, not logic.

then, why are there lawyers and laws ?

>I could take an the postion that no one should be allowed to
>own land -- that the idea of owning land is as absurd as owning
>the stars in the sky. And it is.

no. There are clearly differences

>My point about the Sudoku books isn't that they shouldn't be
>allowed to exist, merely that they are trash.

G.

[lunababy_moonchild]

My point about the Sudoku books isn't that they shouldn't be allowed to exist, merely that they are trash.

I've read some trash in my time, some I've actually enjoyed. I'm also capable of reading very complicated (in terms of sentence structure, grammar and language, not to mention subject matter) 'high-brow' literature.

I value having the choice to do either.

And, of course, having read both gives me the skill to recognise either for what it is. Someone - I forget whom - once said : "you can only see the stars when it's dark".

The vast majority of the greater going public in this country (GB, I'm talking about) will continue to read red top tabloids and trash. In a democracy we get to choose, and that's the luxury.

BTW, AmazonUK are showing a variety of Sudoku books - albeit yet to be published so not too much in the way of information on them yet - that claim to be for the advanced. Perhaps, for the sake of research, Tso, you'd like to have a look and bring forth your opinion (such as it is, given the total lack of information available as of yet on the website). Nikoli are bringing out a book soon.

Also, the Daily Mail are doing some variants which may interest you : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dmstandard/article.html?in_article_id=349054&in_page_id=1766

Would like to hear your given on that too.

Ta

Luna

[tso]

..only if it contains creative work. If you just put sentences together randomly by computer, following some grammatics and then call each collection of 4 sentences a poem, I doubt that
it can be copyright.

Computer generated (not random) music, poetry and prose *have* been generated, published and copyrighted, regardless of if the *should* have been or not.

But are the notes of a song copyright?

Sure.

The fact that I may have created that song with computer program without human intervention will be unlikely to make a difference one way or another. What about John Cage's 4'33?

it might make a difference, if you can't somehow distinguish it from
other pieces generated by computer. An how difficult it is, how
long the computer needs, whether the used program is public domain.
I think, you can't copyright random noise.

What can and can't be protected is subjective, not objective. One jury will say yes, another will say no. John Cage's 4'33 is a piano piece that is 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. It is a protected work regardless of whether you or I feel it should be.

what's a Haiku ?

Haiku is one of the most important form of traditional japanese poetry. Haiku is a 17-syllable verse form consisting of three metrical units of 5, 7, and 5 syllables. They can be copyrighted.

where is the creative work when you choose a random sample of them ?

First -- again, this will be a subjective decision.

Second -- the fact that the sample is random does NOT imply that the *selection* is. Much creative work is selecting out from the background of random choices. If Argus has his software create several hundred puzzles -- a) they're not at random, as he wrote the software and adjusted the parameters to get what he wanted and b) even if they WERE random, he then CHOOSES the one's he likes for what ever reason he likes and publishes those.

See the fully protected work: A Million Random Digits


It wasn't that long ago that all Sudoku were created by hand -- maybe an hour or two for the composer to set it as s/he likes it, test it for accuracy and difficulty. Surely you have to allow that this was "creative work". This does not change because computers can also make them. All that matters is what is on the page.

A painter makes a portrait. She owns this work and has rights covering the distribution of copies of it.

A photographer, aims his camera *at random" at takes a photograph. He has all the same rights as the painter.

There are more than one professional blind photographer -- their work is protected.

Jackson Pollacks paintings ...

Was it really entirely random, or only with some random elements ?

I have no idea what was in his head when he was creating them. No one does. Take a look at some of his work and judge for yourself.

that's a Haiku ? That's all ? Are you saying a novel writer has to pay for each old pond in the novel ??

No -- I'm saying that:

Furuike ya
kawazu tobikomu
mizu no oto

... is a poem, a Haiku. Like all Haiku, it has very few charactors. It can be protected by copyright. If you place it in your book of poetry as if it is your own, you could have legal problems. (Actually, this one is from the 17th century, so you're probably safe.)

Fair use may allow you to include it in its entirety along with several of Argus's Sudoku -- but if you take 100 of Argus's puzzles, make a book from them and sell it, he may very well have cause for action against you, unless you have his permission.

In fact, the DVD of the movie is essentially this. Can I ethically sell this integer without permission?

when you just sell it as an integer and don't print on the cover
or advertise otherwise that it's the movie it should be allowed.

So I can sell MP3's as long as I don't *tell* the buyer that they are bootleg Rolling Stones? An mp3 is just an integer. DVDs, MP3s, like DNA, contain instructions on how to use them within the code. The buyer will figure it out. By that logic, I could type up a copy of your novel and sell it as long as I didn't tell the buyer what it was.

suppose you could copyright integers. Then there must be a smallest copyrightable integer. What is it ?

You're trying to apply logic where none exits. Nothing in copyright law -- or any other type of law -- is immutable.

Suppose you could copyright songs, poetry, fiction. Then there must be a smallest copyrightable song, poem, story. What is it ?

that the idea of owning land is as absurd as owning the stars in the sky. And it is.

no. There are clearly differences

I didn't say it wasn't different, just equally absurd. Many cultures, including most indigenous peoples in the Americas believe that land ownership is absurd and impossible. (For thousands of years, the idea of ownership of music, poetry, stories etc. was inconceivable.)

[tso]

I don't understand your point.

Well, what else can variants be other than a variety?

I'm not trying to be difficulty -- but I really have no idea what it is you are asking, what you are refering to or if we disagree. Could you be more verbose?

[PaulIQ164]

Well, when you mentioned a vast minority (in inverted commas) back on the last page, I assumed you were referring to my coining of the term further back, what with it being a blatant oxymororn and all. I was, in a spirit of childish retribution, pointing out that the phrase "A variety of Sudoku Variants" is surely just as blatant a tautology.

[tso]

Well, when you mentioned a vast minority (in inverted commas) back on the last page, I assumed you were referring to my coining of the term further back, what with it being a blatant oxymororn and all. I was, in a spirit of childish retribution, pointing out that the phrase "A variety of Sudoku Variants" is surely just as blatant a tautology.

Got it. You didn't coin the phrase -- it's fairly common usage -- try googling it. I wasn't picking on you -- I was trying to play along.

I could have had a page of two dozen of the same Sudoku Variants. The title was meant to convey that there was -- uh -- a variety of them.

[JerseyGirl]

Unfortunately I purchased one of those books. I didn't realize until I started working on them that they were not symetrical. All the puzzles I had done were and I found this confusing.

Did anyone else have this problem?

[lunababy_moonchild]

Unfortunately I purchased one of those books. I didn't realize until I started working on them that they were not symetrical. All the puzzles I had done were and I found this confusing.

Did anyone else have this problem?

No, I use the program - downloaded from this site - or Book One of the Times (also puzzles by Pappocom). Having access to all the puzzles that I can handle I tend to just look at the books that are available, just to see what's current.

I once bought a magazine claiming to be filled with hand-made (Japanese) puzzles but didn't get a chance to try one as my father latched on to it.

Luna

[dukuso]

Tso wrote:

> dukuso wrote:
>> ..only if it contains creative work. If you just put sentences
>> together randomly by computer, following some grammatics and
>> then call each collection of 4 sentences a poem, I doubt that
>> it can be copyright.
>
> Computer generated (not random) music, poetry and prose *have*
> been generated, published and copyrighted, regardless of if the
> *should* have been or not.

in what country, under what circumstances ? Were only the random
instances copyright or were there other aspects to make some
"arrangement" and "presentation" of the random instances ?
Is copying or putting some instances into a
public database on the illegal ?

> dukuso wrote:
>> But are the notes of a song copyright?
>
>Sure.

I once figured out by myself the notes of a pop-song
(only the main theme in BASIC's "play"-format) and stored
them on several places and copied it to other HDs. Even sent
it to others by email. Was that illegal ?
What about the notes for that silent piano piece below ???

> dukuso wrote:
>> tso wrote:
>>> The fact that I may have created that song with computer program
>>> without human intervention will be unlikely to make a difference
>>> one way or another. What about John Cage's 4'33?
>>
>> it might make a difference, if you can't somehow distinguish it from
>> other pieces generated by computer. An how difficult it is, how
>> long the computer needs, whether the used program is public domain.
>> I think, you can't copyright random noise.
>
>What can and can't be protected is subjective, not objective.

again, why then do we have laws ? They should at least make one or the
the other decision a bit more likely - independent from the judge.

>One jury will say yes, another will say no.

how likely is a yes ?

>John Cage's 4'33 is a piano piece that is 4 minutes and 33 seconds
>of silence.

?? so how can he prove it's a piano piece ?

>It is a protected work regardless of whether you or I feel it should be.

"One jury will say yes, another will say no." (c)Tso2005 ;-)

...

> dukuso wrote:
>> where is the creative work when you choose a random sample of them ?
>
>First -- again, this will be a subjective decision.
>Second -- the fact that the sample is random does NOT imply
>that the *selection* is.

but my quoted question clearly assumes this

>Much creative work is selecting out
>from the background of random choices. If Argus has his software
>create several hundred puzzles -- a) they're not at random,
>as he wrote the software and adjusted the parameters to get
>what he wanted and b) even if they WERE random, he then
>CHOOSES the one's he likes for what ever reason he likes
>and publishes those.
>
>See the fully protected work: A Million Random Digits

presumably not every single digit is protected ;-)

>It wasn't that long ago that all Sudoku were created by hand --

tempora mutantur...

>maybe an hour or two for the composer to set it as s/he likes it,
>test it for accuracy and difficulty. Surely you have to allow
>that this was "creative work".

as much as math-proofs are and discoveries of combinatorical objects.
Both of which can't be copyrighted. (do we agree here ?)
But do I understand correctly, that you think that only handmade
sudokus can be copyrighted ?

>This does not change because computers can also make them.

what is considered "creative work" might quite well change.
The law doesn't say that the definition of creative work at
time of creating is decisive. The legislative is free to
specify upon what is considered "creative work" after the
work was completed.

But even those people who create sudokus by computer
(e.g. Vegard,Argus,Simes) often claim copyright for them.

>All that matters is what is on the page.

??

>A painter makes a portrait. She owns this work and has rights
>covering the distribution of copies of it.
>A photographer, aims his camera *at random" at takes a photograph.
>He has all the same rights as the painter.
>There are more than one professional blind photographer -- their
>work is protected.

so, let them make a photograph or painting of their sudokus and
claim copyright for the photograph or painting.
But not for the sudoku itself as stored in my database as 81 digits.

...

>No -- I'm saying that:
>
>Furuike ya
>kawazu tobikomu
>mizu no oto
>
>... is a poem, a Haiku.

ahh, it's only one Haiku, not three.

>but if you take 100 of Argus's puzzles, make a book from them
>and sell it, he may very well have cause for action against you,
>unless you have his permission.

He refused to discuss this.
OK, I'm willing to test it. I just took his 100 posted puzzles
and removed his "copyright" file and reposted them with a note
of mine that they are public domain.

http://www.setbb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1649&mforum=sudoku#1649


>dukuso wrote:
>> tso wrote:
>>> In fact, the DVD of the movie is essentially this. Can I ethically
>>> sell this integer without permission?
>
>> when you just sell it as an integer and don't print on the cover
>> or advertise otherwise that it's the movie it should be allowed.
>
>So I can sell MP3's as long as I don't *tell* the buyer that
>they are bootleg Rolling Stones?

I would say yes. (don't know what "bootleg Rolling Stones" is, though.)

>An mp3 is just an integer.

I couldn't find this in any lexicon. But I could find that a sudoku
is a QWH, (which is my main argument and which you keep astonishingly
silent about, BTW.)

>DVDs, MP3s, like DNA, contain instructions on how to use them
>within the code. The buyer will figure it out.

the buyer will buy a DVD without label in the hope it contains
a special song ?

>By that logic,
>I could type up a copy of your novel and sell it as long as
>I didn't tell the buyer what it was.

yes.

>dukuso wrote:
>tso wrote:

no, I wrote the following sentence

>>suppose you could copyright integers. Then there must be a
>>smallest copyrightable integer. What is it ?

>You're trying to apply logic where none exits.

logic is everywhere

>Nothing in copyright law -- or any other type of law -- is immutable.

you're free to choose any time since 1975 (US-Copyright Act)
and give us the smallest copyrighted positive integer of that time.

>Suppose you could copyright songs, poetry, fiction. Then there
>must be a smallest copyrightable song, poem, story. What is it ?

probably one of your Haikus. I'm no specialist on Haikus -
choose the smallest you can find.


I'm not so happy with your strategy of cutting - I'm afraid my main point,
the sudoku-QWH-latin square-permutation-number-math.proof thing
might be cut again ...



Guenter.

[emm]

Dukuso, is there a chance you could learn how to use the quote thingy? It would be so much easier to read your stuff. If there is something profound in there, I don't know that anyone's going to find it - unless you provide a map, a decoder and a full set of directions!

[dukuso]

I can quote the whole post by clicking "quote".
But it's hard to quote parts.
And I'm editing it offline with my own editor.

I found it hard to decipher Tso's quotes in my editor,
also,it had long lines etc.
So I used usenet style of quoting

Since I don't expect anyone else to answer :-(
I thought it should be read and edited offline anyway