On Mar 12 2007, Charlie Lowe wrote:
If the hash is substantive enough to prove plagiarism, then it seems the defense that it's not the original text will fail. I would bet that a 128 bit rate MP3 has less of the original data of any wav file than that hash, and no one would use that argument for saying that an MP3 is not copyright infringement.
Hm, for some purposes the MP3 might not be. Copyright is not very well equipped to deal with the distinction, or the lack of distinction, between record data and relational data (nor between data and software). Under some parts of the statute, data that encodes a copyrighted work is treated differently than data *about* a copyrighted work. (Can you explain the difference? I'm not sure I can. But courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, seem to think they can.)
Besides, the hash is a derivative work if it is not a complete version of the original, and the students have clear rights of both ownership and preparation of derivative works. That is, unless the hash is a parody ;-)
It is not clear that the hash is a derivative work. Tasini and several other cases suggest that it is not a "copy" under the statute, that is, that it is not a fixation of the students' work of authorship. US courts are divided on whether a derivative work needs to be a copy or not. My guess is that it is not a derivative work because it does not incorporate the students' original expression. DLB -- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu