Do You Have A License For Those Facts? 525
spikedvodka writes "Wired is reporting that the "Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act (HR3261)" is under consideration. It passed the house Judiciary Committee, and is on it's way to the Commerce Committee. This bill would allow companies to copyright databases. (Think phone-number databases) and goes directly against the idea that nobody can own a fact." (See this earlier posting.)
More info.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmms... (Score:5, Interesting)
Can I demand an immunity deal as a condition of testifying at all?
Prior law might defeat this in court (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems like mostly the same thing. If this thing does get passed, it will probably be overturned quickly by a court.
Nobody can own a fact. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now. Let's consider the database as a whole.
Do you feel that any database you take the time to put together should have no protection whatseover? As a whole, I mean..
We can probably agree that wholesale copying of my database should not be allowed... even if the individual facts are not copyrightable.
The question becomes, where do we draw the line? Should the DB owner get no protection?
time for the new "open facts" movement (Score:5, Interesting)
Will this change anything? (Score:4, Interesting)
I see this Act valid for some databases, but I can't see it applicable in the Internet.
As I said, this law stuff is too much to me. Any help would be great.
I want a payment (Score:3, Interesting)
No more libraries (Score:4, Interesting)
Ahem. Almanacs. (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't mean you can't quote a fact from an almanac, just that you can't steal large portions and claim them as yours.
A dictionary is like a database of words. The dictionary provider doesn't own the particular words, they own the collection of them. Sometimes dictionary makers put false words in there to catch competitors stealing their lists.
Putting together a database can be very hard work and if someone can just rip off the whole thing, it makes providers think twice before they bother to do it.
As long as.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The ACM loves you (Score:5, Interesting)
So in order to actually pass this bill, both houses need to consider why a huge organization of professionals (as opposed to some slashdotters and pirates) are against it.
my 2x10^-2 dollars (Score:5, Interesting)
In the case of encyclopedias, the collection of information would already be covered by copyright (it is a written work). However, legally, the idea of databases as copyrightable material is a little shakey. Is it a work of art? A written work? It falls under that hard to define region of 'other' works of authorship. The law aims to clarify this.
Oh, and make the overlords happy.
Reminds me of a quote (Score:2, Interesting)
Knowledge in the form of an informational commodity indispensable to productive power is already, and will continue to be, a major-perhaps the major-stake in the worldwide competition for power. It is conceivable that the nation-states will one day fight for control of information, just as they battled in the past for control over territory, and afterwards for control over access to and exploitation of raw materials and cheap labor.
- Jean Francois Lyotard (b. 1924), French philosopher. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Introduction (1979).
Trivia games!! (Score:2, Interesting)
And Jeopardy! will be run into the ground. Each question will cost them a fortune.
Re:Will this change anything? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this may mean that the "Semantic Web" [w3.org] is dead. It never was allowed the time to take off, but an important part of it was to allow computers to make sense out of data, for example having agents roam around and gather facts, and present it to the user any way the user likes. You'd bet if anybody tries this, it will get beaten to the ground by this law at the first attempt, and any subsequent attempts to research or commercialize applications doing this would get into so deep legal problems it will simply not be feasible.
So much for Intellectual Property encouraging innovation.
mmmmmm genomics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nobody can own a fact. (Score:5, Interesting)
All news stories for online editions of newspapers are stored in a database. That data is copyrightable - and as such it is already safe.
The issue at hands regards someone who creates a database of non-copyrightable information, but wants to extend copyright onto that collection of data.
Eg. a database of phonenumbers, or a database of box-scores.
If the DB 'owner' is not aggregating copyrightable content, then no, he should not have the right to copyright the sum collection of that information.
This is where the sports precedent comes in -- the supreme court decided that a league cannot copyright its box-scores, nor an aggregation of those scores.
Keep in mind, if the information in your database is something you can have a copyright for, your rights are already protected under existing law.
This is a blatant 'land-grab' attempt to extend copyright protection to information that is currently not copyrightable.
Re:Nobody can own a fact. (Score:1, Interesting)
The next question comes about when we consider a person who collects the same scores, but for a longer period of time. Would the fact that your copyright covers a subset of his database still put him in violation of your copyright?
This is bad legislation. Common sense should send it into the dumper. The lack of common sense in Congress is what has me concerned.
Re:Absolutely ridiculous (Score:2, Interesting)
If this bullshit law passes... (Score:1, Interesting)
And I bet I won't be alone. People will do all kinds of nonsensical things to demonstrate how asinine this law is.
I plead Copyright, your honour (Score:5, Interesting)
Database of one? (Score:5, Interesting)
... and yes, I am aware of the irony regarding the usage of the U.S. Army's slogan (An Army of One!).
Google (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this mean that Google can have copyright over just about everything online and in the retail sector?
All your pages are belong to Google?
Re:Hmms... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now lets say this bill gets passed and becomes the law of the land. Everytime I give out my phone number, do I have to cite MaBell? How about an list of phone numbers of computer retailers in my community? All that information is contained in the phone book. Even though I went to each and every store and wrote down their phone number, it still could be showen that it all that data was in MaBell's database and covered under her copyright. At what point does a collection of individual facts cross the line between just a collection and a database?
"Substantial expenditure" (Score:4, Interesting)
"Substantial", of course, is undefined, but I wonder if this means that a company's catalogs would be included, or not. While it would take me great effort to suck in Wal Mart's entire pricing structure, they presumably get it pretty easily.
Re:Hmms... (Score:3, Interesting)
Suppose I have a copy of the OED on CD - a database of words (currently covered by copyright). I skim this from time to time with the goal of improving my vocabulary, and use obscure words in conversation.
Let's say my friend who I'm talking to on the phone asks me "what was that word?" and I have OED open on my computer. Would I run afoul of this law (by quoting him the definition -- a "fact" ( let's assume I paraphrase it so straight copyright is less of an issue)? I am, after all, using the facts in that database in a way that potentially deprives the owner of the income they might get if I told my friend they needed to get a copy of OED for themselves.
Yes, it needs to be "signifigant" -- but what does that mean? This imprecision gives wiggle room for the filing of not-quite-frivolous lawsuits against the "owners" of the facts.
An aside: since the publishers of OED created those definitions (for non-archaic words, at least) by observing usage in the collective public database we call "Spoken Language", would there be a cause of action against them in a class-action by the "owners" of that "database" which is known as the public? (not seriously suggesting that; but such a scenario seems as absurd as the legislation at hand)
You are absolutely right... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Unlike copyright, which expires 70 years after the death of a work's author, the Misappropriation Act doesn't designate an expiration date."
So I retract my comments. I have thought it over and it looks like this law would do more harm than good. I would not oppose something that would codify databases if it did so in very careful terms and for no longer than ten years.
Re:Careful... (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally I don't agree with any law that uses the force of government to interfere with how I use my physical property in favor of someone else's "intellectual property rights", so of course I oppose this law. But when taking the existing copyright laws as assumptions, I see this law as a perfectly logical conclusion.
Re:Hmms... (Score:3, Interesting)
Databases typically, when well-designed, don't leave too much room for creative arrangement. You don't separate things into different tables just because you like the color 'blue'. And as pointed out elsewhere, the arrangement clause could be difficult to deal with for low counts, like 1 or 0 items. How many different ways can you arrange one item? Yeah.
But even so, the facts themselves can be freely moved around. The idea is to protect companies from having their entire database copied and resold.
As I recall, the bill also excluded researchers from caring. Some of the wording also seemed to me to indicate they only intended to go after places that were reselling such copied databases, not free versions thereof. I haven't read the bill since the last time
Re:Hmms... (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is, at what point does a collection of facts become a database? Is a database containing only the names of all the US presidents copyrightable? How about one of thoracic surgeons in my town? My state? The whole country? Is the test going to be whether or not the database is generating someone an income? That would suck hard.
Re:Hmms... (Score:1, Interesting)
Can I demand an immunity deal as a condition of testifying at all?"
The law doesn't give anyone the right to own a fact, only the right to prevent someone from stealing their unique database of facts. Of course, you sound like someone without an indepependent thought in your head, so you may be in trouble.
Re:This bill is not bad, and not about copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This bill is not bad, and not about copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
And how, exactly, is this different from how things are right now?
Go surf to Yahoo! Sports [yahoo.com], scroll to the bottom, click on "Terms of Service". Now go read through section 6. If you're lazy (this is
Oh hell. You are lazy. Here it is:
You're already prohibited from slurping from Yahoo!'s NBA page, or any other page from Yahoo! for that matter. Section 10 is even more clear about this. It's short too. Sure, people may do it, but that doesn't make it legal.
Contract and copyright law already covers what needs to be covered here. This is just another law that overextends existing protections, all to the benefit of a few and the harm of the many.
Re:Just because Wired says it doesn't make it true (Score:3, Interesting)
Firstly, I'd like to dispute the implication that something is "creative" or somehow intrinsically worthwhile simply because it is difficult. Database construction may or may not be creative, I don't know, but the fact that it's difficult is not evidence one way or the other.
That said, I think I'd be willing to accept conceptual ownership of data collections provided it came with some responsibilities, mainly, database owners should make (enforceable) promises about the integrity of their data. Too many databases just hoover up information and put it in the tables, without ensuring that it correlates with the real world at all. If a database has an owner, then it creates the possibility that someone can be held accountable for the fidelity of the data.
I think this could go a significant distance to easing people's fears about data collection.
Listen to what Greenspan is telling congress (Score:1, Interesting)
This bill is contrary to the standard ideals of most slashdot readers but it will pass, its inevitable.
Read here, near the end of the article..
Greenspan talks to congress [cnn.com]
I hereby copyright ... MySelf (Score:2, Interesting)
Some right - some wrong - some ridiculous.
But that doesn't matter - it is a database anyway.
And while we are at it - I would like to copyright 2005 calenderwise. I will make one and you ALL have to pay royalty if you use any day of that year.
Hmm - what about personal information? I know what I bought at the store. The store will now being infringing on my copyright since they are copying my database into theirs?
This message is subject to the GPL. You may copy it.
Re:Just because Wired says it doesn't make it true (Score:3, Interesting)
So if you were planning on arguing that people owe you licensing fees for your database of in order prime numbers, you'd be out of luck. No jury would let you get away with it...I hope.
Re:Just because Wired says it doesn't make it true (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh huh. And if they want to do just that, they'd be welcome to. But they better be prepared to prove that they produced their work without stealing it from my database. Which shouldn't be too hard if they didn't...because my database has trick data in it, similar to the nonexistant streets inserted into copyrighted maps to check for infringement.
See, patent law says that you can't create anything new that looks like my product...but copyright law just says they can't take MY database and call it theirs. It's still up to me to prove they're infringing.
This law is giving databases the same rights as all other content. I have no problem with that.
Re:Just because Wired says it doesn't make it true (Score:2, Interesting)
The general idea behind this bill is maybe, possibly, OK in a grey-area sort of way, but my serious complaint against this is that the bill is terribly written. It is so dangerously un-specific as to be easily abused. I really hope this can be stopped because this could be legislative disaster on the scale of the DMCA.
A Mathematical Viewpoint (Score:5, Interesting)
Under the proposed law, who's to say what consititues a "datum" in a database? Wouldn't a word be sufficient? Why couldn't the author of a novel (who expended a considerable effort to assemble that particular collection of words), claim the novel is a database and sue someone, who uses the same words in a different novel, for infringement? This is the logical conclusion of such a faulty bill and is, of course, absurd.
Republican Hypocrate (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More [biased] info... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just because Wired says it doesn't make it true (Score:3, Interesting)
And you think this is a GOOD thing?
Let's say that I take a list of cheeses and match them to either "sweet" "sour", or "salty". I create a database of these foods, which I now own.
Now let's say you want to create a list of foods and classify them as "sweet", "sour", or "salty".
Guess what! You can't include cheese, because I own that database.
What a nightmare!
Re:More [biased] info... (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps this is another case of technology making another business model obsolete.
Afterall, if this is public information in the database (and if it weren't then it would not be sellable to the public), then that information is out there. Now, the technology is ready and the infrastructure is rapidly becoming ready - how long before we just ask our computer to compile the data as needed.
A clever software agent could do the work for us.
Nobody would 'own' the data or the database, but some companies might run a compilation service. That is similar to the model we're talking about but not the same: would a rival compilation company go to another to get the data they wanted? Well they might if they were selling for more than the other company, but that's called sub-contracting.