<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>I see your point as it pertains to telephone lists—a poor example on my part. However, I would suggest that Steinway’s parts and price list goes well beyond a collection of publically available facts that Steinway is required to compile under law and therefore should be free for the taking. Or, as has been happening on Pianotech, copied and publically distributed at will. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The same Wikipedia article also says:<o:p></o:p>“Since facts are purely copied from the world around us, O'Connor concludes, "the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_qua_non">sine qua non</a> of copyright is originality". However, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality" title="Threshold of originality">standard for creativity</a> is extremely low. It need not be novel, rather it only needs to possess a "spark" or "minimal degree" of creativity to be protected by copyright.”<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Knowing a little something about how price lists are created I can assure you that any company’s parts and price list is considerably more than a collection of publicly available facts that can be “purely copied from the world around us.” The quantity and cost of raw materials has to be estimated and analyzed; the amount and cost of factory labor has to be determined; indirect costs such as warehousing and transportation around the factory floor have to be estimated; some amount of factory burden has to be estimated and added to other costs; the cost of pulling the part from assembly, assigning it to tech services and estimating tech services costs have to be estimated; and the list goes on. Few, if any, of these times and costs are publically available facts, nor are they absolutes; they take analysis, thought and, yes, a certain amount of creativity to create. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>ddf<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>Delwin D Fandrich<o:p></o:p>Piano Design & Fabrication<o:p></o:p>6939 Foothill Court SW, Olympia, Washington 98512 USA<o:p></o:p>Phone  360.515.0119 — Cell  360.388.6525<o:p></o:p><a href="mailto:del@fandrichpiano.com">del@fandrichpiano.com </a>— <a href="mailto:ddfandrich@gmail.com">ddfandrich@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Boyce Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 2:51 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Steinway parts list<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>Del, the phone book case I had in mind was about White Pages. I just looked it up again, it's Feist v Rural, 1991. In involved the phony numbers thing that you mention. There is a very good discussion of it in Wikipedia, which is useful because it sets out the principles and ideas behind US copyright law very well. You suggest that <o:p></o:p><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'> Company Y has to gather their own information independently<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>of Company X's published list; then they are free to publish their own list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>based on the information they have gathered as the result of their own work.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>Even if the two end up being identical.<o:p></o:p></pre> Afraid not! The Feist V Rural case established just the very opposite: "The court ruled that Rural's directory was nothing more than an alphabetic list of all subscribers to its service, which it was required to compile under law, and that no creative expression was involved. The fact that Rural spent considerable time and money collecting the data was irrelevant to copyright law, and Rural's copyright claim was dismissed". I think that would apply to Pierce. Try it and see what happens in court! Best regards, David. <o:p></o:p></div></body></html>