[slavik81]

Sure, but if choosing your moves is a creative task, then why wouldn't the moves be jointly copyrighted by the two players?

What's the difference between:

    1. e4 e5
    2. Qh5 Nc6
    3. Bc4 Nf6??
    4. Qxf7# 

and:

    fmt:    .string "Hello World!\n"
        .balign 4
        .global main
    main:
        stp    x29, x30, [sp, -16]!
        mov    x29, sp
        adrp   x0, fmt
        add    x0, x0, :lo12:fmt
        bl     printf
        ldp    x29, x30, [sp], 16
        ret 

if both are the result of a creative process?

[Retric]

Events that happens are facts, creative representation of facts is copywritable but not mechanical translations. Thus you can't get a copywrite on the S&P's closing value, but you can on a story about it. Further, a program has multiple possible representations, you can copywrite the code in one of them, but not gain a separate one for the compiled code.

PS: There are also many ways to generate code that don't create a copywrite.

[matt4077]

You're talking past each other. I think everyone agrees with the decision, but it is indeed a gray area. The S&P closing value isn't comparable because it's the product of a stochastic process.

But even if there's a smart legal doctrine defining the difference between a chess game and two musicians writing a score, lets not pretend that such legal doctrines aren't created to arrive at the result that seems right. Not that there's anything wrong with that – look no further than the "smart contracts" fiasco to see the folly of trying to define rules in a "completely objective" framework.

PS: "copyright", not "copywrite".

[logicallee]

Thank you.