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.)
Easiest way out... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Easiest way out... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Easiest way out... (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean that they now own the internet?
Hm... have they had their IPO yet?
Re:Easiest way out... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Easiest way out... (Score:5, Insightful)
make a company, create a database of your personal/family information and copyright it. basically download YOURSELF and your family to a database... therfore forcing the phone company, cable company, etc... to license your data from you.
if enough people do this, either the law will get overturned when it becomes a reality, or it will create a gigantic pain in the arse for all corperations.
I.E. my home address and name is your property and for comcast to bill you they MUST have a license to your data and therefore pay a monthly use fee.
you MUST use their own laws against them... I.E. the only way to win is to play by their rules.
Re:Easiest way out... (Score:5, Insightful)
More info.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More info.. (Score:4, Funny)
kind of the /. for librarians...
Oh God... I can see it now...
All your books are belong to us!!
In Soviet Russia, shelves book you!!
Imagine a Boewulf of those!!
Re:More [biased] info... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. NOBODY is trying to COPYRIGHT ANYTHING! NOBODY is trying to OWN FACTS! (Please repeat this to yourself three times before continuing to read anything anywhere)
2. Big database companies (like West) are worried that other companies can slurp up large parts of their data and turn around and sell it. Everyone agrees this is unfair and shouldn't be allowed.
3. Big companies now KNOW that COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECT THEM from situation 2 above because of Feist. (Google it with copyright).
4. Big companies want some law to point to when situation 2 actually happens.
The real problem(s):
a. Situation 2 may not be a real problem. No one has shown that this is actually happening.
b. Big companies (like West) like to sue honest competitors to gain any advantage they can. That's their job. (Google West and Lexis)
c. The new legislation may be addressing a non-problem while facilitating expensive, unnecessary lawsuits designed to harass competition.
d. (The big one for me) The new legislation may chill the activities of companies like Google who might inadvertently become liable.
Hey man, can I bum a sig?
Careful... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Careful... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Careful... (Score:5, Funny)
Just because Wired says it doesn't make it true! (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, it's not FACTS that are being copyrighted. It's databases. Yes, a database is a collection of facts -- but it's the concept of collection that's being protected here, not the concept of facts.
Think about it this way: you can copyright a guitar riff, but you obviously can't copyright a note. A note is a basic, concrete thing, you can't CREATE a new note. Does this fact bely the creation of original songs? I don't think so...every time music seems stagnant, somebody finds a new way to make it.
In the same way, you can't copyright a word, but you can copyright a book. You can't copyright red, but you can use it in your painting.
The creative act of assembling a database -- and if you don't think it's creative, you've never done it, it takes a TREMENDOUS effort to assemble and maintain a useful data relation even if you're using publically accessible information -- is something that should be protected. It gives data warehousers the same assurance that other content creators receive, so that they can offer access to their systems without worrying about losing the value...something which in my experience has plagued content creators greatly.
In fact, I see no reason why databases can't be fairly used same as any other created work. For example: let's say I run a sports website. If I wrote an editorial, and you wanted to quote a few lines on your own site, you'd be allowed to. But copy all the text and you're in violation of copyright. It'd be the same with databases. Want to quote a sport score or two? No problem, that's fair. Want to present all of yesterday's results? You'd better ask permission or start compiling them yourself. I don't have a problem with this.
Re:Just because Wired says it doesn't make it true (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't??? How about the fact that practically all other creative work is STATIC, and most databases are DYNAMIC??? See the problem now? It's relatively easy to define a copied work of a static object, but how do you define a copy of a dynamic object? It would be a nightmare. This is a serious problem.
Re:Just because Wired says it doesn't make it true (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, now if you take your collection of notes, and randomize the order they're in, you have something totally different. Now, take your database, and randomize the records in that. You still have the same exact database. They are two totally different ideas.
Re:Just because Wired says it doesn't make it true (Score:5, Informative)
SEC. 4. PERMITTED ACTS.
(a) INDEPENDENTLY GENERATED OR GATHERED INFORMATION- This Act shall not restrict any person from independently generating or gathering information obtained by means other than extracting it from a database generated, gathered, or maintained by another person and making that information available in commerce.
(b) ACTS OF MAKING AVAILABLE IN COMMERCE BY NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS- The making available in commerce of a substantial part of a database by a nonprofit educational, scientific, and research institution, including an employee or agent of such institution acting within the scope of such employment or agency, for nonprofit educational, scientific, and research purposes shall not be prohibited by section 3 if the court determines that the making available in commerce of the information in the database is reasonable under the circumstances, taking into consideration the customary practices associated with such uses of such database by nonprofit educational, scientific, or research institutions and other factors that the court determines relevant.
(c) HYPERLINKING- Nothing in this Act shall restrict the act of hyperlinking of one online location to another or the providing of a reference or pointer (including such reference or pointer in a directory or index) to a database.
(d) NEWS REPORTING- Nothing in this Act shall restrict any person from making available in commerce information for the primary purpose of news reporting, including news and sports gathering, dissemination, and comment, unless the information is time sensitive and has been gathered by a news reporting entity, and making available in commerce the information is part of a consistent pattern engaged in for the purpose of direct competition.
I won't annoy all of you by requote the whole text of the bill (which I highly recommend you read before flaming). However, from my reading of it, all it seems to prohibit is for someone to make available significant amounts of a commercial database for their own profit. Basically, you can't spider Lexis-Nexis or the like and sell the info, but you CAN independently collect that data from direct sources and compete with them.
If I'm missing something here, PLEASE tell me. Again, read the bill first though, before you spew fire.
Re:Just because Wired says it doesn't make it true (Score:5, Insightful)
Say I have a list of names , and another list of colours. If I make an association between the names and the colors, I have created something new, even if I didn't create the colors and I didn't create the names. You can now get a list of names that are associated with the color blue. That association is my creation. This new law would say that I own the association. It doesn't say that I own the names and colors.
And as for 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: ownership is not the same as copyright. You don't have to have accurate data to copyright a book...you could copyright a book comprised entirely of lies. Anne Coulter has done it several times. All copyright does is say "I made this. You can make your own, but you can't copy mine unless I say you can." Ownership of data is something completely different...something that's very difficult in a digital environment.
Re:Careful... (Score:3, Funny)
Please surrender your license at the door
Every day I feel my nick becomes more and more appropriate...
Re:Not quite (Score:5, Informative)
I feel dirty now... I so despise copyright law...
fix that wackbar law (Score:5, Insightful)
in fact, until there are some competent reviewers, I suspect it would be good if all further patents, copyrights, and laws regarding digital matters just freakin' S T O P.
Hmms... (Score:5, Interesting)
Can I demand an immunity deal as a condition of testifying at all?
Re:Hmms... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there's a real chance of it being declared unconstitutional, because Congress's authority to issue patents and copyrights is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (US Const, Art. 1, s. 8, p. 8) That said, they'll probably just pass it as a law governing interstate commerce.
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!).
The real point (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the fact that everyone is missing has nothing to do with the article in question, because the article in question misses the key point: the only news item from today that is noteworthy is that an alternative bill is being put forward in the House Energy and Commerce Committee that will specifically alter the sections the House Judiciary Committee proposed.
The Wired story is out of date. I'd link to the article in CQ today, but it's restricted. HR3261 will hopefully be beaten by the energy and commerce version, which will bring the database protection under the scope of the FTC, rather than under an individual corporation's scope.
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?
Re:Hmms... (Score:5, Informative)
Eldred V Ashcroft will tell you all you need to know about how limited those limited times are, ie: they aren't.
Re:Hmms... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. A good analogy would be an encyclopedia -- each entry is nothing but facts, facts, facts, but they're written in a particular way which itself is copyrightable. You can re-copy the facts, but (barring fair use) not the exact format in which it's written.
A database is very similar: a bunch of facts written to a hard drive in a particular way which is uniquely readable and useful (and marketable).
I plead Copyright, your honour (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmms... (Score:5, Funny)
You can't handle the licencing fees for the truth!
line starts here.... (Score:5, Funny)
Absolutely ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong here is that a phone book, for instance, is already protected under the law. You can't just take an existing database and republish it exactly as is. What you can do is gather the same set of data and publish this in your own format. This is consistent with the intent of copyright...to protect original work.
The more insidious problem is that those who have the money and influence will control the data.
What will be interesting is how the overlap between corporate databases is resolved. Does an email list of potential customers from Dell infringe on the copyright of a similar list from Gateway. There would undoubtably be an overlap.
IMHO, this is a ridiculous law.
M
Re:Absolutely ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
No, the intent of copyright is to promote the public good, specifically the dual public interests of seeing that more original and derivative works are created, and that more works are in the public domain.
Second, you're wrong about phone books. If a database isn't copyrighted you can indeed republish it exactly as-is.
Facts are uncopyrightable. Compilations of facts _may_ be copyrightable, but only if they are themselves original, and even then it doesn't protect the contents. A typical phone book is not original -- the selection is all-encompassing within a given area, so that's not protected, it lists unoriginal information such as name, number, address, so that's protected, and it arranges it alphabetically by last name, and that's not original nor protected.
This is a ridiculous law, but you don't seem to know much about our extant ridiculous laws.
Re:Absolutely ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
This might have been true a hundred years ago, certainly not before that when the US did not yet have much own work to protect, and certainly not much later when the public good was just a stage for larger interests keen on keeping power to themselves.
But yes, for the public good, copyrights could be s
Re:Absolutely ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
And why wouldn't it have been true before the 20th century? All the contemporary writings on the subject revolved around that. The language in the Constitution is pretty clear, as was it before that, all the way back to the Statute of Anne.
Re:Absolutely ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
As for database overlap, that wouldn't be a problem if this law were implemented. Separate creations of the same set of facts are still separate.
Amen Brother ... (Score:4, Insightful)
In my opinion, there's only one answer: amend the US Constitution so that Reps and Sens can only serve two terms (like the President) and limit campaign contributions to $100 per person to each candidate in each election. No PACs, no unions, no companies and no churches, only voters can give.
But of course Congress would kill that in a second.
Rome is burning and George II is just playin' the banjo to some corporations music.
Re:Absolutely ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations will squeeze every last damn cent they can out of anyone.
I'm all for corporations making profits
Now your first statement seems to be an opinion against the second statement. How can you be opposed to increasing profit margins (squeezing pennies) and for making profits. That's their job as put forward by the stockholders of the company to make money.
When will the government stop this capitalism run amok?
the government helping protect this
W
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.
Re:Prior law might defeat this in court (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prior law might defeat this in court (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prior law might defeat this in court (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL but that doesn't make any sense.
The precedent is irrelevant. They're taking something that was legal under the law and passing a law to make it illegal. If a case is brought to court over that law and the law is found to be unconstitutional, then it might be overturned. The precedent would have no bearing since the law itself is changed.
Re:Prior law might defeat this in court (Score:5, Informative)
"Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original, and thus are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves. This fact/expression dichotomy severely limits the scope of protection in fact-based works. Pp. 344-351
And
The Copyright Act of 1976 and its predecessor, the Copyright Act of 1909, leave no doubt that originality is the touchstone of copyright protection in directories and other fact-based works. The 1976 Act explains that copyright extends to "original works of authorship," 17 U.S.C. 102(a), and that there can be no copyright in facts, 102(b). [499 U.S. 340, 341] A compilation is not copyrightable per se, but is copyrightable only if its facts have been "selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 101 (emphasis added). Thus, the statute envisions that some ways of selecting, coordinating, and arranging data are not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection. Even a compilation that is copyrightable receives only limited protection, for the copyright does not extend to facts contained in the compilation. 103(b). Lower courts that adopted a "sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection" test - which extended a compilation's copyright protection beyond selection and arrangement to the facts themselves - misconstrued the 1909 Act and eschewed the fundamental axiom of copyright law that no one may copyright facts or ideas. Pp. 351-361.
The first point (and to me the more important one since it is based on constitutional law) still stands. However the second one is basically eliminated since Congress is amending the copyright law to include sets of facts.
We need to let everyone know what FUD this is (Score:3, Informative)
Terrible idea (Score:5, Funny)
This is a terrible idea... and that's a fact.
(Please see my lawyers if you'd like to license this fact...)
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?
Re:Nobody can own a fact. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nobody can own a fact. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: IP vs Copyrights (Score:5, Insightful)
The catch is as soon as you share, your secret isn't a secret any more, and this is where the corporate money-grubers don' want the the process to stop.
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:3, Insightful)
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Because as you say, where do we draw the line? The whole DB? 50% of the DB? 10%? 1%? And what about a DB of DBs? How would you like not being able to access your DB because it has now become a fact in someone else's DB?
time for the new "open facts" movement (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong direction... (Score:3, Insightful)
As usual, everyone should write to their congress critters [loc.gov] and register their opinions.
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.
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.
No it doesn't (Score:3, Insightful)
My copyrighted list of facts (Score:3, Funny)
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Licenses to use any of the information on my copyrighted list are available now at very reasonable rates. Discounts are available for bulk users. Yeah, I'm talking to you, Neal Stephenson!
Re:My copyrighted list of facts (Score:3, Funny)
1234567890
-1
2_
3=
4+
5[
6{
7]
8}
9\
0|
1/
2?
3>
4.
5
6,
7:
8;
9"
0' ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) ~ `
Copyright (C) 2004 Lemmeoutada Collecti, All Rights Reserved.
Open Source Authors are hereby grented a non transferrable royalty free license to use the above database for Open Source Products. All others remain subject to a $1.00 US license fee per use.
Please remit fees immediately.
Have a nice day.
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.
Re:Ahem. Almanacs. (Score:3, Funny)
Darn... after I spent an hour arguing over a word last night while playing Scrabble [hasbro.com], I find out the word may have been fake after all !
Re:Ahem. Almanacs. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ahem. Almanacs. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and if you read the fine article, it's the collection of facts that is proposed for protection, not the individual facts themselves. Again, I would say that this is fair; putting together a large database is hard work. You're free to create your own database using the same methods, and put it in the public domain. Why should you be free to reproduce someone else's database in its entirety (or a substantial portion) without permission, even if it is a large collection of publicly available knowledge?
Re:Ahem. Almanacs. (Score:4, Funny)
Tarnation.
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
So we must look at this case. Has there been a lack of growth in factual databases due to the inability to profit from them in the same way that, say, the author of a novel can? No, I think not. If then is the case then it seems to undermine the whole enterprise of copyrights and patents altogether. For it seems that if a company can and will go through so much trouble to create a database of phone numbers without any monopoly protection, that lesser efforts will surely happen with or without such protections as well.
So, if these legal monopolies were created for a purpose and they no longer serve to help fulfill that purpose, then what good are they? None at all.
Phone Books (Score:5, Insightful)
He also says that despite Kupferschmid's characterization, the bill puts no limit on the amount of information someone needs to take from a database to violate the law.
So if I write down a phone number out of a phone book would I be thrown in a pound me in the ass prison
As long as.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Dictionaries (Score:3, Funny)
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.
passed out of commerce committee (Score:3, Informative)
This is a good thing!
So how about this (Score:4, Insightful)
Make a database of your personal information (Name, phone number, address, family history, etc).
Sue other companies for using your "copyrighted data", which is held by your company.
Profit! (For the lawyers anyway)
=Smidge=
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.
Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Funny)
"The law of unintended consequences in this case has the potential to be huge," Brodsky said.
Actually, I think the law of unintended consequences has been licensed and copyrighted to the Elect Ralph Nader Committee for quite some time now.
A view from the trenches.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, and here's the part where I get sent to burn in karma hell, there are "collections of facts" that should be copyrightable.
Let me give you an example, quality multi-lingual terminological databases and glossaries are multi-year projects that demand a great deal of capital and human labor.
These terms are out there for anyone to do the work and compile them, yet no one will do this kind of tedious and thorough work unless they have a reasonable guarantee of being properly remunerated for their efforts now and into the future.
I would argue that a 10-year copyright period is more than sufficient for this kind of work to thrive.
In an ideal world, universities would band together to create these works and then release them to the public domain, but most universities these days operate as large corporate conglomerates and have very little interest in producing public goods.
Advancement of what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Section. 8.
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
How does this advance Arts or Science? It's a real stretch to say that a list of customer data is a Writing or a Discovery.
Editors who don't read articles... (Score:4, Informative)
The last thing we need is for slashdot to misinform everyone on something that fundamental about the bill.
mmmmmm genomics (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is this such a crazy idea? (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies (and individuals) expend a great deal of time, energy, and resources to compile information. Why should they not be afforded some protection for that effort? The example of legal databases from the article is a perfect one -- it takes time, money, and a large amount of effort to enter cases and decisions into a database. This proposed law will not make those cases copyrighted, but simply the aggregated collection of cases in the database. There's a world of difference.
All this means is that you can't freely copy a set of information compiled by someone else without their permission. Seems fair to me. It's not the facts themselves (e.g. phone numbers, stock quotes etc.) that would be copyrighted, but some specific collection of facts. If you really want a database of stock quotes, you're free to create your own (or ask the copyright holder if you can use theirs).
This bill is not bad, and not about copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Just make it time-consuming to scrape. (Score:5, Insightful)
I realized some time ago that it'd be relatively trivial for someone to come along and scrape all the URLs I link to, put 'em on a page with a buncha ads, and try to make a buck off stuff I'd spent a lot of time on. But I'm not terribly concerned about it happening. Why?
There's no law saying that database output must be presented in a format that's easy for people to scrape, any more than email addresses.
Ah, great, just what we need...... (Score:3, Insightful)
The legal system needs a reset button.
"Originality, not effort" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Originality, not effort" (Score:4, Informative)
Relevant quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
So I guess the (high priced) LexisNexis feels threatened by the free information provided by Google et. al.
An encyclopedia site not only could own the historical facts contained in its online entries, but could do so long after the copyright on authorship of the written entries had expired. Unlike copyright, which expires 70 years after the death of a work's author, the Misappropriation Act doesn't designate an expiration date.
Finally we're getting perpetual ownership of information. It's only a matter of time before it gets put into regular copyrights in order to harmonize the laws. Disney's wet dream come true.
Commercial database companies say they invest millions of dollars in collecting, editing and organizing information for their customers, but don't have adequate protection to prevent someone from stealing the information to compete with them.
To me this is the worst possible justification for a new law. No one made them invest millions of dollars.
Fight This! (Score:5, Informative)
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?
A new way of censorship... (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
You don't own facts (Score:5, Informative)
"This Act shall not restrict any person from
independently generating or gathering information obtained by means other than extracting it from a database generated, gathered, or maintained by another person and making that information available in commerce."
That seems fair to me, actually. The goal overall of this bill is to say that if you put forth effort to gather a bunch of data, the effort of gathering it is worth money. The information is free, but the actual gathering of it is an artifact.
It makes a database like a book. Even if you eliminated copyrights, it would still be illegal for you to steal an actual book from me. Obviously the usual arguments that a database is not an artifact apply. I'm not going to argue them here; I'm just pointing out what the bill says.
Stop being stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me make this clear: I believe the database bill to be terrible and dangerous legislation. I also believe that the technical community can be instrumental in helping to stop it.
Let me make this clear as well: If the technical community persists in their decade-long strategy of histrionic "chicken-little" screaming every time a bad bill comes out, we will once again see nothing but bad legislation pass.
This is what happened with DMCA, it is what happened with the Patriot Act changes, and it is now happening again with the database bill. Note that the database legislation was originally attached to DMCA, but withdrawn due to excellent lobbying. That can and should happen again, unless we screw up the way we did with DMCA.
Meaningless or false statement (depending how you define terms) such as the ones above serve noone but those who support the bill. The bill does not provide copyright protections (it is a different kind of right, both less and more in different ways), nor does it provide ownership of "facts."
Oh, yes. There are probably rationalizations that foolish people might proffer to defend these remarks, but by the time they have finished confusing those who do not need to be converted, they have long since lost credibility, and the attention of every relevant legislator or person who might otherwise have moved favorably from the fence.
So, please, oh please! STOP THE MADNESS. Remember the line from Apollo 13: "Gentlemen we are not going to do this, we're not going to go bouncing off the walls for ten minutes because were just going to end up right back here with the same problems."
If you are interested in this, and you should be, take the time to read the bill and learn what there is to worry about. Don't oppose it as a knee-jerk, and focus on what is wrong with the bill. Maybe it can be completely defeated, maybe not. But it will never be defeated, and like DMCA, is far more likely to be passed entirely, unless we show an intelligent, balanced and "straight-shooting" front.
The bill needs to be defeated. I assure you that remarks like the foregoing are not the way to do it.
I just wrote to my congresswoman (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire system needs to be simplified and speedier. It can takes years to get simple cases resolved. Even ones that are downright silly.
But legal reform isn't the only thing needed - the entire federal and state criminal and civil codes need to be re-written and simplified, along with IRS codes, etc, etc. Just think about the time and money wasted because of the foolish complexity of the system. Any party that is truly committed to simplification of the system will get my vote. And neither the GOP nor the Democrats are interested in anything but more complexity - which allows them to help their pet special interests at the expense of the public.
Re:Facts as advertising (Score:3, Funny)
>
> (C) International Business Machines, Inc. 2004
"The Screen is Blue." (C)
(C) Microsoft Corporation
The actual case. (Score:5, Informative)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
Insane.
Re:Laws are copyrighted. (Score:4, Informative)
No, Im not kidding.
There _was_ someone who tried to fight this by posting the laws online, but I am unsure what happened.
I'm pretty sure you're talking about building codes being copyrighted even after enacted into law. Some links regarding this:
construction works article [constructionweblinks.com]
slashdot article [slashdot.org]
A search on the Supreme Court's site seems to have the latest activity on June 27, 2003:
02-355 SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE V. VEECK, PETER The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
As far as I can tell, this means that they declined to hear the case, leaving the ruling of the lower court (5th Circuit Court of Appeals) stand, which was to rule in favor of Peter Veeck for posting the building code online.
Re:Laws are copyrighted. (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite.
The laws themselves aren't copyrighted, but they may say things like "we incorporate National Electric Code 99 by reference." NEC 99 is copyrighted, and that's what you have to pay to get a copy of.
The effect is the same, of course, but it's not as if a government can run around copyrighting laws willy-nilly and then busting you for violating them. If you're an electrician, you pretty much had