Algorithms don't need incentives to create: outputting is what they do if they're useful. So copyright is completely inappropriate
The conclusion, that copyright is inappriate, is correct -- you can't copyright facts. The atomic weight of helium, or my phone number, aren't copyrightable.
However, the logic to get there is ridiculous. While algorithms don't need incentives, the people who create those algorithms do need incentives.
And because the algorithms themselves are created by, um, creativity, in some cases their output may be copyrightable. See, for example, "algorithmic composition", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_composition
The reason that WolframAlpha's output shouldn't be copyrighted is that it's pure facts, as contrasted to the output of algorithmic composition -- that music isn't factual, there's no "correct" answer to "compose me some music about X".
I think you've left out a more important point. The results are generated by unique user input interacting with the algorithms. Claiming copyright over the result is a kin to Adobe claiming copyright over your work product because you used Photoshop to create it. Granted the amount contributed by the software vs. the person is different but where do you draw the line.
Also, Wolfram Alpha results are more copyrightable because (in my experience) they're so off-the-wall and idiotic. Several precedents (remember the Seinfeld Aptitude Test case?) have shown that fictional facts can be copyrighted even though facts can't be.
Wolfram Alpha's terms of use are idiotic, sure. But I have no problem copying all the results I want. You can copy all the images and copy the plaintext of the results (just click on the results, a overlay with the results in plaintext will pop up). Heck, you can even download a freaking PDF with the results.
Sure, html tables would be nicer (and more elegant) than the images WA creates (but because of all the mathematical stuff you can output they had to design a system that generates images anyway and just decided to use it for everything). But copying works flawlessly.
So while the terms are idiotic, this article is factually incorrect. Copying is no problem.
This article is factually incorrect. Copying is no problem.
Although Wolfram Alpha's terms of use does lend itself to be perceived as rather idiotic, sure.
The conclusion, that copyright is inappriate, is correct -- you can't copyright facts. The atomic weight of helium, or my phone number, aren't copyrightable.
However, the logic to get there is ridiculous. While algorithms don't need incentives, the people who create those algorithms do need incentives.
And because the algorithms themselves are created by, um, creativity, in some cases their output may be copyrightable. See, for example, "algorithmic composition", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_composition
The reason that WolframAlpha's output shouldn't be copyrighted is that it's pure facts, as contrasted to the output of algorithmic composition -- that music isn't factual, there's no "correct" answer to "compose me some music about X".