Don't call Wolfram Alpha a search engine. Billed by its creators at Wolfram Research as a "computational knowledge engine," Wolfram Alpha uses mathematical techniques to cross-reference myriad specialized databases, producing unique results for each query. For example, query Wolfram Alpha for "San Francisco New York elevation" and you get back a page explaining that, at 52 feet above sea level, San Francisco is 60 percent higher than New York. (The same query at Google yields links to airline ticketing sites, a review of a pilates studio in San Francisco, and a blurb about a New York burger joint.)
But that's not all that separates Wolfram Alpha from traditional search engines. Try cutting and pasting from the results page. You can't, and with good reason. According to Wolfram Alpha's terms of use, its knowledge engine is "an authoritative source of information," because "in many cases the data you are shown never existed before in exactly that way until you asked for it." Therefore, "failure to properly attribute results from Wolfram Alpha is not only a violation of [its license terms], but may also constitute academic plagiarism or a violation of copyright law."
[ Tired of being told to do more with less? Participate in the Slow IT movement: Rant on our wailing wall. Read the Slow IT manifesto. Trade Slow IT tips and techniques in our discussion group. Get Slow IT shirts, mugs, and more goodies. ]
In other words, Wolfram Research is claiming that each page of results returned by the Wolfram Alpha engine is a unique, copyrightable work, like a report or term paper. That makes Wolfram Alpha different not just from classic search engines, but from most software. While software companies routinely retain sole ownership of their software and license it to users, Wolfram Research has taken the additional step of claiming ownership of the output of the software itself. It's a bold assertion, and one that could have significant ramifications for the software industry as a whole.
This whitepaper explains the terminology and concepts behind Data Replication technologies and establishes some sizing rules through worked examples. Learn the new paradigm in disaster tolerance—protect data anywhere.
Download now »
Server virtualization is a popular option for dealing with mounting datacenter costs. Another equally promising approach is the use of an Application Delivery Controller. Citrix NetScaler provides a low-cost way for organizations to reduce their server count and accrue cost savings from a reduction in space, cooling, power and personnel.
Download now »
The emergence of WLANs has created a new breed of security threats to enterprise networks.
Included in HP ProCurve WLAN solutions is security technology that alleviates threats from WLANs through:
* Monitoring wireless activity inside and out of the enterprise
* Classifying WLAN transmissions into harmful and harmless
* Preventing transmissions that pose a security threat to the enterprise network
* Locating participating devices for physical remediation
Effectively address data protection challenges, implementing solutions that help store and protect business–critical data while cutting costs and improving efficiency and reliability.
Download now »Until this is resolved in favor of sanity, include me among the non-users. I just don't appreciate "services" provided by those who a priori consider their users to be likely criminals. This does not make the world a better place. It doesn't hurt, of course, that in my one attempt to use it it returned gibberish.
The phrase "can't cut and paste" reflects capability, not permission. Because I could copy (ok, not actually cut) the page from Firefox and paste it into a Gmail message I was composing. No problem! In fact, the information pasted into that Gmail message including what was on the page and much more. I could also use their link to download the page in PDF form which rendered quite nicely. And of course, good old screen capture would allow copy and paste regardless of any other mechanisms present. So can definitely copy and paste foolishness. You most definitely can. (Disclaimer: I discarded that Gmail message and the PDF so I didn't actually steal their precious intellectual property.)
And what was their precious intellectual property? I asked Wolfrom Alpha "where is the north pole". And it showed me: A city in Alaksa!
Now, if I wanted cities, I would have asked for cities. And I would have expected North Pole, New York to be included in the list too. But, no, I asked for the north pole. Which is not in Alaska. In fact, it's not on any land mass, at least not a land mass that protrudes above the ocean's surface.
Google and Bing queries for "where is the north pole" resulted in vastly more useful, but far less legally restricted, responses.
My second query to Wolfram Alpha was "where is wolfram's rear end". They couldn't find it. Even using both hands, apparently. But I won't tell you their response, because it's precious and valuable copyrighted intellectual property. You'll need to ask them for yourself.
While I have the greatest respect for Stephen Wolfram's intellect, I fear he may be trying to push a string uphill. The question of copyright of machine generated output does not have much legal footing footing pro or con, but it does have some. In the halcyon days of AI hype (late 80s) there were a small handful of "Commercial Expert Systems" that attempted to express such a concept (attempting to reserve copyright of output to licensor rather than licensee) in their sales contracts. I wish I could remember the details, but I do know that more than one of these became involved in litigation. It would be nice to know IF the copyright question ever became a "question before the court" in one or more of those proceedings. I doubt judges of that era would have been very supportive of the idea.
However, regardless of prior rulings, I do remember quite clearly a project in which I was involved, attempting to include such language in a Defense Contract we negotiated. The governments lawyers did not just remove the clause, they reversed the sense of the language and asserted customer (government) control of any possible copyright over the output of the system by explicitly making it inherit the classification level of the producing code.
Now, my take-away has less to do with the contract, (I mean who looks up arcane military contracts for prior art in business dealings?) than it does with the attitude of the lawyers involved. Lawyers on both sides seemed to tacitly agree that copyright for computer output was a long shot, which was why the government attorneys wrapped their assertion in the language of security classification.
Just two cents, who knows what current courts would do or what the DMCA defenders would push for.
Please try to keep the breathless uninformed speculation to a minimum, Mr. McAllister; you aren't a lawyer and it shows. The copyright of machine generated works has been a matter of law for more than a hundred years. Machine generated logarithm tables were published copyrighted in the 1870s. Music, film and art have been heavily dependent on machine generation, and still been copyrighted, for more than 50 years.
Ask yourself who drew Toy Story or the Final Fantasy movie, and who played the instruments in Depeche Mode or Tangerine Dream albums. Ask yourself who drew the explosions in Futurama. Ask yourself who's pitch bending your Cher and your Eiffel 65. Ask yourself who's mixing those ProTools samples on your rap albums. Ask yourself who makes those 3d stereograms or those fractal posters. Ask yourself why GIS satellite data is copyrighted.
All machine generated, several in their entirety. All copyrighted.
Copyright isn't about assuming criminality or bullying people out of using results; your frenzied mis-presentation isn't doing anyone any favors. Look how your readers are reacting. There were things released copyrighted as the results of pure machine output in the 1800s; I can't imagine how in 2009 an InfoWorld author who doesn't know that believes himself qualified to discuss "shifting" copyright law.
Please stop perambulating through a field you know nothing about. It's destructive to the minds of the people naive enough to believe your writing. (I was unable to portmanteau the words "melodrama" and "journalism" satisfactorily.)
"It's a bold assertion"
It is neither bold nor an assertion. It is a matter of fact since the US engaged the Berne conventions; they're just writing it there so that people aren't taken by surprise. To be bold is to be courageous in the face of mortal danger, from the Saxon "beald", which is why Harald the Bold wasn't named for his legal land-grabs.
Are you edited at all? I mean seriously, this wouldn't get through most highschool english classes.
"Actually, the Autotune innovation that Cher premiered"
Oh be quiet, please. The machine is called an AutoTuner - that's its brand name - and was released in the early 1960s, and has essentially nothing to do with Cher other than that poorly educated people like Dan will recognize what it is from her highly public performance.
"By the way, "high school" is ordinarily still expressed as two words"
Not by people who've graduated it.
"and "English" is always capitalized."
Dan, the very last thing you want is to get into a grammar fight.
"I guess that begs the question at hand, as well."
Nope. To beg the question is to make an argument wherein your final point is assumed as a foundational concept used to shore up your arguments. I haven't done that. Please do us all a favor and don't waste our time reciting the names of fallacies you don't understand.
"To the point, the article appeared more to question the wisdom of claiming (and acting in support of the claim) copyright privileges for these particular outputs as much as their legality."
Yes, I'm well aware that the article questioned the wisdom of stating a fact as a fact. That's the narcissistic stupidity I was pointing out.
You might as well question the wisdom of stating that the sky is blue.
Having used Mathematica during grad school and for a short time at work, I would certainly agree that the absurdity described by Mr. McAllister is entirely typical of Wolfram. After I discovered Waterloo Maple, a much more user-friendly equivalent tool, I left Mathematica behind.
Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts
915 Recommendations
