🚀 go-pugleaf

[the discusson of this in Telecom Digest lasted only 2 messages, so
i'm crossposting it here for your interest.]

>>>>> On 20 May 91 02:51:17 GMT,
>>>>> kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J
>>>>> Woodhead) said:
Robert> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 379, Message 5 of 10

Robert> Dan_Jacobson@att.com writes:

> After one thumbs past the newly "liberated" white pages of my
> Illinois Bell Naperville Ill. phone book, one encounters a fairly
> bland street map of Naperville, with copyright notices at the bottom
> of each page.  Would the U.S. Supreme Court also see this map as a
> mere collection of facts too?

Robert> You are confusing facts with expression.  Copyright law covers
Robert> the expression of ideas (or facts, or whatever), not the
Robert> underlying ideas themselves.  Thus, that *particular* map
Robert> (expression) can be copyrighted, but the idea behind it (the
Robert> configuration of streets) cannot.

Robert> Personally, I think the SC ruling is a flawed one.  I
Robert> certainly believe that it is inequitable.  TPC spent time and
Robert> money to generate the phone number listings in the book, and
Robert> rival white pages companies should pony up if they want to use
Robert> them -- or generate them a different way.  TANSTAAFL!

Robert> Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.
Robert> trebor@foretune.co.jp

[e-mail replies: please post it to netnews instead -DJ]