
Random Startup Generator - bwy
http://www.ykombinator.com/
======
chetanahuja
If someone told me that they used a tool like this to generate a startup pitch
and got seed funding, I'd find it hard to dismiss it as a joke.

~~~
_random_
A simple improvement: add a team bios section in the bottom with three images
grabbed randomly from google image search results "startup hipster" and random
text along the lines of "...coded on commodore at 6, graduated MIT, left
Google to disrupt...".

------
nullc
Why isn't there random news on news.ykombinator.com? :(

~~~
MattConfluence
[http://www.blarworld.net/hackernewsgen.html](http://www.blarworld.net/hackernewsgen.html)

    
    
      Ask HN: Does my startup need to code unicorn picture technology?

------
Kortaggio
Something I've always wondered with regard to idea generators like this: in
the (extremely unlikely but non-zero probability) event that it actually
generates a good idea and someone decides to implement it, throwing up a
website with the same copytext that was output by the idea generator, who owns
the copyright over the copytext?

~~~
andrewfong
Assuming we're talking about U.S. law, it depends.

If the implementing website did not actually copy the copytext from the
generator and came up with the exact same language by chance, then the
implementing party owns the copyright (or more accurately, the implementing
party has not infringed upon the rights of whoever wrote the idea generator).

But let's assume there was actual copying. Then whoever write the idea
generator owns the copyright on the copytext (assuming he or she didn't assign
those rights to an employer, etc.). BUT that assumes the copytext is
copyrightable to begin with.

Copyright law requires that a work be created by a human being in order for it
be copyrighted. In particular, the U.S. Copyright Office refuses to register
"works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly
or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human
author."[1] Since the copytext here is computer-generated, you could argue
that no one owns the copyright.

But that's a stretch. Although each individual idea is randomly generated by a
computer, a fair amount of human creativity went into making sure the ideas it
spits out aren't total gibberish. I don't know what the exact level of human
input is required for something to be copyrightable, and as far as I'm aware,
there's no court case directly on point here. But I think there's enough for
whoever wrote the idea generator to make a good copyright claim.

One final aside though: If a start-up actually copies the copytext, they still
might be protected under fair use. Fair use generally protects copying that is
minimal and serves a different purpose than the original (e.g. quoting a
passage from a book in order to critique it).

In this case, the work that is being copyrighted would have to be the set of
all ideas generated as a whole, not the text of any particular idea. That is,
assume the idea generator is capable of generating 100,000 possible random
start-up ideas. Then the unit of "work" that is copyrightable is the set of
all 100,000 ideas. Therefore, because you're only copying one of those 100,000
ideas, you might be able to argue that your copying is minimal. Moreover, your
copy of the work serves a different purpose than the original (the purpose of
the generator is parody, but in your case, you're actually being serious).
There are other factors that go into fair use (economic effect and commercial
vs. non-commercial use), so it's hard to say for sure whether you could get
away with it, but it's certainly a plausible position to take.

[1] [http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-
full.pdf](http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf)

~~~
lutusp
> If the implementing website did not actually copy the copytext from the
> generator and came up with the exact same language by chance, then the
> implementing party owns the copyright (or more accurately, the implementing
> party has not infringed upon the rights of whoever wrote the idea
> generator).

This is quite false. A copyrighted work's content is protected by copyright,
and how it is duplicated doesn't enter into the equation.

In principle, with a very powerful set of computers and a lot of time, I could
randomly generate any work of art, visual, sound or print. The fact that the
works were generated randomly doesn't make any difference.

There are many variations on the thousand monkeys at typewriters story going
back decades, but the idea is if enough random sequences of words are
generated, eventually a recognizable, copyrighted work will appear.

Many people don't realize that the "Birthday Song" is copyrighted. The first
measure is a mere six notes long. Assuming I can render the tune within a
range 12 semitones, I only have to generate 12^6 = 2,985,984 notes, to be
absolutely certain to have randomly violated the copyright somewhere in the
sequence -- and, of course, it's very likely that I will have succeeded well
before generating all 2,985,984 notes.

But my method of generating the tune is irrelevant to the outcome, which is a
potential copyright violation.

~~~
andrewfong
I think you're confused by my original statement. By "came up with the exact
same language by chance", I mean "came up with the exact same language without
reference to idea generator," i.e. your copy of the text was _independently_
created.

Under U.S. law, there must be actual copying in order to infringe upon
copyright.[1] Note that is different from patent law, which does not protect
independent "invention".

That doesn't mean you can get around the Happy Birthday copyright[2] by simply
randomly generating six note sequences until you get the one you want. That's
still considered copying for all intents and purposes.

On the other hand, let's say you somehow never heard the Happy Birthday song
and somehow just came up with them on their own. That's fine -- no copying, no
infringement. This is what I was referring to.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity)

[2] There's actually a good argument that the song is no longer copyrighted.
[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/filmmaker-
picks-a...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/filmmaker-picks-a-
copyright-fight-with-happy-birthday/)

~~~
lutusp
> I think you're confused by my original statement.

No, not confused in the slightest.

> By "came up with the exact same language by chance", I mean "came up with
> the exact same language without reference to idea generator," i.e. your copy
> of the text was independently created.

Did you actually read my post? My "Birthday song" example shows that a
randomly generated sequence of notes still constitutes a copyright violation.

> Under U.S. law, there must be actual copying in order to infringe upon
> copyright.

Yes, but you're confused about the meaning of "actual copying". Any method
that substantially reproduces the original constitutes actual copying.

> That doesn't mean you can get around the Happy Birthday copyright[2] by
> simply randomly generating six note sequences until you get the one you
> want.

That is absolutely false, and I am shocked that you would post this nonsense
in a public forum. The result is the only issue -- if it's a copy of a
protected work, no one asks how the copy was generated.

> On the other hand, let's say you somehow never heard the Happy Birthday song
> and somehow just came up with them on their own. That's fine -- no copying,
> no infringement.

Also false, as much case law demonstrates. The difference in the case of
simultaneous invention is the severity of the punishment, not the judgment
that it's a violation.

Your reference to substantial similarity isn't relevant to what we're talking
about. Substantial similarity addresses the issue of how alike two works are,
not how a work was copied. Two works that are sufficiently different are
judged not to be in conflict with respect to copyright issues. The method of
copying is not a factor.

> There's actually a good argument that the song is no longer copyrighted.

Yes, and IMHO it shouldn't be copyrighted. It's a classic example of a
perversion in copyright law.

~~~
andrewfong
> Yes, but you're confused about the meaning of "actual copying". Any method
> that substantially reproduces the original constitutes actual copying.

Nope, you're flat out wrong and I'll stake my bar license on it. Actual
copying requires that "the defendant actually used the plaintiff’s work in
order to create his or her own work."[1] Courts typically require proof of
"access to the copyrighted work" _in addition to_ substantial similarity
between the results.[2] Substantial similarity can help constitute
_circumstantial evidence_ of copying but does not indicate infringement in and
of itself.[3]

\---

>> That doesn't mean you can get around the Happy Birthday copyright[2] by
simply randomly generating six note sequences until you get the one you want.

> That is absolutely false, and I am shocked that you would post this nonsense
> in a public forum. The result is the only issue -- if it's a copy of a
> protected work, no one asks how the copy was generated.

Read my original quote again. I think you missed the _" doesn't"_ in my
statement. We're in agreement that randomly generating content until it
resembles a copyrighted work will get you in trouble, albeit for different
reasons.

\---

>> On the other hand, let's say you somehow never heard the Happy Birthday
song and somehow just came up with them on their own. That's fine -- no
copying, no infringement.

> Also false, as much case law demonstrates. The difference in the case of
> simultaneous invention is the severity of the punishment, not the judgment
> that it's a violation.

Can you point out a single case where that's true? There's at least one
appellate level case saying the opposite (albeit with 3 notes, not 6):

'''[D]efendant submitted affidavits by experts analyzing the two compositions
and showing that the only similarity between them is a recurring three note
sequence found also in the works of Johann Sebastian Bach. The evidence
presented clearly does not raise a question of fact as to whether the two
compositions were so strikingly similar as to preclude the possibility of
independent creation.'''[4]

You may be confusing patent law with copyright. Under patent law, independent
invention is no defense (except as to damages). But copyright law != patent
law (unfortunately IMHO -- some semblance of an independent invention
requirement would make patent trolling less profitable).

\---

Citations:

[1]
[http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications...](http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/elements_of_a_copyright.html)

[2] See, e.g., Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F. 2d
1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 1977), available at
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1674068343222286...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16740683432222862864).

[3] See, e.g., Donald v. Zack Meyer's TV Sales and Service, 426 F. 2d 1027,
(5th Cir. 1970), available at
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1791074878897978...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17910748788979780235),
and Orgel v. Clark Boardman Co., 301 F. 2d 119 (2d Cir. 1962), available at
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9525184415609798...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9525184415609798342).

[4] Ferguson v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 584 F. 2d 111, 114 (5th Cir.
1978), available at
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1791074878897978...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17910748788979780235)

------
freditup
Enjoyed playing with this - it would be neat to see a version where the
company name and description matched up a little bit more and the description
had a little bit more semblance of reality. No startup is going to talk about
'Pedobear' or '/b/' on its splash page.

~~~
idlewords
That would be playing with fire, though. The risk of one of these being funded
is high enough as it stands.

------
Tiksi
Off topic, but in Firefox 33, I get a scrollbar past the "bottom" of the page.
Looks like it's due to the margin: 20px; on .fireplace. Setting it to
margin:20px 20px 0px 20px; seems to fix it.

~~~
madeofpalk
Additionally off topic, I'm confused as to why Cufon was used for custom
fonts, when @font-face is so widely supported these days...

~~~
mappu
The site is at least 3 years old.

~~~
madeofpalk
Ahhh ok, that explains it then.

------
pearknob
Novel. This is a project of Smore; which coincidentally does incredibly
awesome design work with their products. This (ykombinator) is a good example.

------
rikacomet
It shows that idea is just the top cream layer, and without the cake made with
human hard work and sacrifices, its nothing special.

------
chiph
"Cloudulate" sounds plausible.

Perhaps "Cloudulation" is what happens at the end of a successful project...

------
Lai0chee
This is the very best thing I've ever seen on this site. :-)

------
frik
It seems it's based on the markov-chain algorithms.

~~~
thibauts
It most probably isn't. Basic text spinning IMO.

------
longtime-lrkr
Www.possiblestartups.com Simple alternative

