On 07/16/98, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> Again, my original statement has become distorted. Reconstructing a
> complex ancient structure from ruins (hundreds or thousands of
> pieces, many missing and broken) hardly resembles the simpler problem
> posed by Riolo.
The principle is exactly the same, and is clearer in Riolo's example. As in any good legal analysis, the discussants are moving from application of the principle in a simple fact pattern to application of the principle in a more complex fact pattern.
> It is, though, analogous to "recreating" Shakespeare's plays,
> which contain hundreds or thousands of pieces (words), many missing
> and broken (mis-heard or ill-remembered and taken down by others).
But the point remains that the effort is to reconstruct, as precisely as possible, Shakespeare's work. This clearly constrains the degree of originality that can be exercised. If the reconstructor comes up with something that looks like "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead," instead of "Hamlet," the work may be highly original, but unacceptable as a reconstruction.
If there is only one, or even a small number of acceptable reconstructions, then the requisite originality for copyright will be lacking. If there are a large number of acceptable reconstructions, then the choice among those reconstructions.
> That was my analogy, not what Riolo stated. Please respond to my
> analogy, not his version of it!
Responding to his version *is* responsive to yours.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:30 GMT