Slashdot Mirror
Coping with Database Protection Laws
harryhoch writes "Activist and Web commentator Andy Oram has written an article on the consequences of database protection Laws. The Sap and the Syrup of the Information Age: Coping with Database
Protection Laws addresses legal and social implications of database protection legislation. For folks interested in deCSS, patents, and other "intellectual property" issues on the Net, this article provides another interesting perspective." Congress is considering legislation that would make collections of facts protectable by law. Andy Oram takes a look at what that would mean to the Internet and public in general.
Quick, patent the 'locate' command, and the resultant indexes, and you'll own everything, ha ha ha ha ha!
:)
Doesn't Microsoft own a *lot* of this stuff now? And now Time-Warner / AOL? That scares me.
Also, rules against "linking to a web site" strike me as being incredibly stupid. Oh no, I made links to the current stories on slashdot's main page. They're going to sue me for infringing on their content. Good thing everyone else is doing it too, now, and we should be thanking them for cutting down on wasted bandwidth, and cross-indexing sites for us in a useful fashion...
"Can't we all just get along?"
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but does that mean you can mirror my site even without my permission?
IMNSLO (in my not-so lawyerly opinion) most web sites are fully protected under current copyright, since they contain creative work. The distinction is that it is the creative work (writing, graphics, layout etc), and not the filesystem structure, nor the uncreative data contained within that is copyrighted. Database protection laws, if enacted, might protect those things as well.
So you probably have recourse if someone is mirroring your site without permission, although caching to improve network performance is generally allowed. You might have a case if someone is taking uncreative data and repackaging it, but probably not under copyright law.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
IMNSLO (in my not-so lawyerly opinion) most web sites are fully protected under current copyright, since they contain creative work. The distinction is that it is the creative work (writing, graphics, layout etc), and not the filesystem structure, nor the uncreative data contained within that is copyrighted. Database protection laws, if enacted, might protect those things as well.
So you probably have recourse if someone is mirroring your site without permission, although caching to improve network performance is generally allowed. You might have a case if someone is taking uncreative data and repackaging it, but probably not under copyright law.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
While the above scenario may be unlikely, it's only for the reason that there's little use for the derived information today.
Your scenerio is not at all unlikely. In fact, given market forces and political trends in the world today, I think it is nearly certain that something like this will happen quite soon. Doubleklick is the tip of a very large, very ugly emerging iceberg.
It doesn't have to be a large, well financed governmental body relatively free of public oversite (e.g. American NSA, CIA, FBI, Russian KGB, etc.) who collects and distributes this information, though it would be foolish to discount that possibility. Just as easilly, and perhaps more probably, it could be a couple of enterprising entrepeneurs with a high level of technical skill, the right connections, and a regrettable lack of respect for the privacy of others. Once the information is collected, finding a market to sell it to is child's play, with the medical insurance companies being just the first in a very, very long line of customers.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I don't see how any more laws are needed. It's already against the law to pirate software (which is what virtually all databases are anyway). So for the database manufacturers to refer to the "data collections" as copyrightable seems disingenious to me.
Databases are NOT software. Copying the contents of your /var/log/mysql directory is NOT protected by software law; likewise if I wget your website and mirror it, the software you use to maintain your database is irrelevant.
There are other protections: I can put copyright notices on my web pages,
You've missed the point. What if you don't have the copyright to the info on those pages? For example, if you compiled a list of Thai food restaurants in all the cities in the US, should you be able to copyright that list? You can't copyright any individual item on that list, because the information isn't yours, but should somebody else be allowed to simply copy your work?
disallow queries that do not originate from within a given site structure, etc.
In other words, copy protection. But in a lot of situations that's not valid, and as Lessig pointed out, copy protection has its own problems. As you quoted in your reply:
Privatizing information through contract, encryption, and similar devices may carry greater individual and social costs than would a copyright system
The right to copyright "database facts" would seem to imply that if I create and a database of scientific facts, for example, I am somehow entitled to enforce my right to be the whole source of publishing that information
Most of the new laws are pretty clear on this: you don't get a monopoly on the information, but nobody else can simply copy the entire set of information from you. In other words, if I go out and compile the same information, I'm free to publish it. But I can't simply copy your list.
This is a subtle, and important issue. And guidelines need to be drawn, because fuzzy guidelines are lawyer food and hurt everybody.
Can I copy the freshmeat database and mirror it on my site? Why not? It's just a database of facts. Nothing on Freshmeat originates with them. How about Dejanews? Now certainly I'm allowed to archive Usenet, but am I allowed to simply copy the work that Dejanews has done?
The worst thing we can do here is make knee jerk responses (Information should be free!) to complex questions, because then the process simply passes us by. Certainly databases deserve some copyright protection: the question is how the protection should be worded, and personally I'd like to see people who are knowledgable about the Net involved in the process.
Yes. Or rather, the only thing stopping me is copyright. And this issue is specifically about what types of things can be copyrighted.
the single source for taking your data is the web. And the courts have ruled that info as published on the web can be copyrighted already.
Can be. But not necessarily. That's what the issue is. What can, or can not be copyrighted.
But legally it is a valid one -- witness the successful suit against deep linking.
Which was a real bad decision IMHO. And that's why relying on the courts is a bad idea.
you're a major company with the resources to legally bury me?
Then you're screwed. Unless you have laws that are crystal clear as to content and copyright. So clear that the lawyers can't find some backwoods judge someplace to screw you over.
I think competition, adequate security, and the courts
The courts??? Once this reaches the supreme court, I might agree with you a bit. But until then, relying on the courts just means that the side with the most lawyers wins. Witness DeCSS.
We could have beaten the Digital Millenium act. We really could have. But too many people were sitting on the sidelines with their "Information wants to be free" banners hoping that the courts would save us like they did with CDA.
Congress is considering legislation that would make collections of facts protectable by law.
Would this mean that I could compile a database with my own personal info. (Name, DOB, Address, etc) and sue anyone else who attempts to include the contents of my database in their own?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The problem is - if we don't stop saying things that may be used against us by MPAA lawyers, we'l help them. If we stop, they've won. What they want is to have us quiet. And they will use our speach to fight us to get us quiet. It's a lose - lose situation...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Collections and/or compilations of facts/data is not copyrightable. Works produced with value added or some sort of processing of this data may be, but this is a hazy area. There is one example of this that works well in highlighting the issues involved. The ARRL collects information on all the repeaters in the US, and then compiles a list that is sorted among header for find a local repeater of a specific type (band, beacon, etc.). This data is obtained from open sources (local repeater coordinators, requests to be included, etc.)
Now the ARRL makes a good bit of money on the sale of these little pocket books. For that reason they protect what they feel is an exclusive right to that data by claiming a copyright. Some people have come along and attempted to put some of the data from these books into electronic databases for easier access, and have been forced by the ARRL to stop and retract all of the data. While the people have been told time and time again that the ARRL does not have a good legal foundation for their case it is awfully hard for a college student to take them to court and challenge the claims.
The reason this is a hazy area is that the ARRL adds formating that might be considered creative content. Normally formating is also not protected under a copyright, but when that formatting is techinical data that is added by the compiler where to draw the line is less clear.
Been there done that. Many times as a matter of fact.
But adequate security and copyrighting the result as put out in the publishing medium (the web, right) can already provide the level of legal protection you need, correct? In other words, my assertion is that companies with large databases are pushing this legislation to protect their data investments, against who? Crackers? no. News organizations? no. Current competitors, only marginally, I think. Smaller web publishers? Most likely, because this is where the major innovations and future competitors will come from.
So I see this as another example of corporate America trying to hijack and control the web.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I agree that everyone should be able to use data they personally, or as a corporation collect, for most thing. But investigations into some areas should be forbidden (ie, companies correlating web search and medication purchases with possible diseases and refusing insurance.) as well as trading information between companies.
If I give someone a piece of data based on me, I want some control over it, as in, knowing who I give it to, and what they do, and thus are going to use my data for.
If I give my birthday to ICQ for them to tell my contacts, I would accept them using it to target age-related banners to me, because that is the sort of business they are in. If they sell this to another company, I won't know who has it, or what uses it's being put to. Thus I won't give out my information at all.
This is where some reduction of freedom (copyright laws prevent totally open use of all information) end up increasing freedom by making people willing to share the data in the first place.
If it was illegal to base business actions on medical data that you didn't directly connect, then I wouldn't have to worry about insurance companies talking to grocery stores, noting that my CC was used to purchase junk food, and upping my premiums, or some of invasive use.
Similarly, if companies had to collect their own data, you wouldn't have to worry about that critical point where you ISP, bookstore, drugstore, etc, are all linked, so that everything you buy, read, watch, are all linked.
I'd say that all information collected for possible sale, and all information to be shared across trademark divisions (between different types of companies) should require warning the user specifically on the collection form.
What really pisses me off is when companies collect and distribute your data, but claim no responsibility for mistakes.
I'd *love* to see a big-money lawsuit against Equifax or some other similar company, where their incorrect data was used over the individual's protests, and that incorrect data led to a decision harming that individual. Then that person sues them for a typically large US settlement. A few of those could change a company's attitude quickly.
Fun idea... If the creator of a piece of data owns it, then selling a database of personal info, with a trojan fact (different spelling of middle name, etc) with a license saying that anyone using that information must specifically tell you in all cases that information is sold of used to generate a list with your name on it, would give you a lot of control. And you'd be able to use it later, if the company you originally sold it to didn't pass it on, you'd show that the information originally had that warning, and anyone using it had to get it via that original source, and use it to gain access to your data.
Collections of facts are ALREADY copyrighted and always have been. Even collections of uncopyright material are themselved copyrighted.
For example, an encyclopedia, collection of recipies and a CD-ROM containing the files of Project Gutenberg are all copyright.
You're lucky you don't have a deck. I gave one of those buggers a couple of Karma bars once, and ended up extracting him with the business end of a Desert Eagle.. Seems they still have that primitive 'bridging' instinct left over from the Middle Ages, and a raised wooden platform is all it takes to get them excited. Had him under there for weeks, shouting obcenities at guests that thought a nibble on the deck would be smashing. Now, all exibitionism aside, how do you that made the young ladies concerned feel?
.sig: Now legally binding!
This seems pretty legit. Ask Jeeves for example has spent millions of dollars developing "facts" for it's database.
But that does not entitle one to monopoly protection! In a capitalist society, simply spending money on an activity does not grant you special protection under the law. The DVDCCA certainly spent a lot of money developing their encryption scheme - should there be a special law to "protect their investment."
The free of free market is the same free in free software. The free market is and was a radical idea. Copyrights and patents are throwbacks to mercantilism and only implemented in our capitalist system because of the benefit they confer on society as a whole. Unfortunately, as any 17th century mercantilist would tell you, or any large 21st century corporatist, having a monopoly grant is a wonderful thing. The last thing we need to do is extend copyright protection to collections of facts - it's the equivalent of patenting nature.
Current commercial law already protects against the wholesale lifting of data. This propsed legislation would give database holders untold power over how the data, even be those paying to access it, can be used in other projects - even those that may compete in a "potential market" of the database retailer.
Certainly databases deserve some copyright protection: the question is how the protection should be worded, and personally I'd like to see people who are knowledgable about the Net involved in the process.
That is far from certain.
First, database are already copyrighted. That is, the actual representation and presentation of data is copyrighted as well as any creative component. For both these reasons dictionaries and resturaunt reviews, for example, are copyrighted.
Second, the database industry is extremely profitable and undergoing an enormous rate of growth. This is not an industry in trouble, suffering from rampant "piracy."
Third, there is no inherent right to copyright protection. Copyright is a statutory right, one that is mercantilist in nature and anathema to a free market, only tolerated because of the wider benefit that the law confers on society.
Databases already enjoy numerous protections against wholesale lifting both in copyright law and under commercial practice law. The propesed legislation gives enormous new powers to those lobbying for the law. Powers to prevent competition, control how their facts are used, and create a monopoly liscense that they have no right to.
Imagine the court cases that follow "infractions."
Today's courts are supposed to determine facts, by sheer dint of evidence presented by two people who both want opposite facts to be considered true.
"He stole my fact!" responses:[
Database protection laws could have a terrible effect on the Internet and upcoming technologies such as XML and the variety of *ML offshoots it's spawned. I hope Congress is smart enough to be fair to everyone.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Of course, there'd be a lot of logistics to work out, especially in terms of having the data be high-quality, not error-ridden. And data can't really be verified in the same way as code. But perhaps it's worth considering.
Francis Hwang
Do domain names matter?
Dug, here's your present!
The next time you use your Frequent Preferred Dug Shopper Card at Dugmart you'll be eligible to obtain a 10 percent discount on that Jack Daniel's and Hemorrhoid Creme (you know, like the stuff you bought last weekend at 12AM after your car was spotted leaving the Adult Bookstore by the Crime Prevention Control Camera System that was installed for your protection against terrorists.)
P.S. Don't forget to enter our free drawing by filling out the 10 page questionnaire on you "to help us serve you better."
"Provided by the management for your protection."
But what happens when a search engine looks at another search engine?
Do the laws even begin to cover this?
-----
No Zen is good zen
Now that the owners of these databases have this information, and the contents of their databases are protected by law, are they required to insure the data contained is factual and accurate? Since they now control access to that data are they accountable when that data is misused or inaccurate?
These are questions the legal system does not seem to deal with well. I belive this is because the legal system has changed significantly, at least in the United States. It's purpose is to now protect special interest groups rather than liberty, morality, and justice.
Currently I am dealing with a collection agency, that is attempting to take me to court and marking up my credit record, against their client's wishes (their client has admitted they made the mistake but the collection agency only collects a fee if they collect from me before the matter is settled through proper channels). In the process I've learned a lot about credit reports, and came across some frightening other collections of data, including driving history, insurance history, income, and voting record. None of the people involved in the collection of this data are required to check with me before adding or selling information about myself (with name and address) to a third party. If that information is incorrect, they are not liable.
Consider this. A bank is required to let you know if you are denied credit becuase of an unfavorable credit rating. What if a credit agency only sends out credit ratings for people they consider favorable? The bank would know to deny you credit if the credit agency was "unable" to send your report, and would not be required to tell you simply becuase they don't know WHY the credit report was not sent. (F.Y.I. One major testing lab already did just this with aids test. They wouldn't send out positive results to prospective employers...)
If you are from a country where laws are written for the good of the populace, please respond, either via e-mail or in /. giving me the country name and how things are done (in case I finally convince my wife to emigrate).
-----
No Zen is good zen
Yeah we give various parts of our personal info to complete strangers on occassion, but how would you feel if some guy down the street rummaged through your garbage, and kept tabs on you all day? I bet you would be pretty freaked out.
Basically, I don't think the main concern is what that kind of database is currently used for (advertising, etc). But how much information collected about us is too much? What is the line between minor annoyances such as getting ten catologues in the mail, and thought profiling done by law enforcement agencies? The easiest way to stop abuse is to prevent it before it really starts.
First they have to figure out what facts are are before they can protect them. I guess I shouldn't have used Congress and facts in the same sentence.
Simply collect all the facts about yourself, present it in a readable form with a time/date stamp on it, and if you somehow get placed on a mailing list, then inform the originator that they are using database information that is patented (Your collection of personal information).
Will it fly? I'm no lawyer, so dont quote me on it...
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
Ah, well.. there's a silver lining on every cloud but lightning kills thousands of people searching for it every year...
In the direct mail industry, everyone is kept honest by seeding the lists. Seeding works for that purpose, but after a while the lists would end up being padded with 1-2% seed material due to all the hands they went through.
Unfortunately, there's no decent way to go about protecting everyone's interests. Mailers have to pay the cost of mailing the seeds, which are basically useless, and aren't informed of even how many names aren't valid. But generally the names are purchased (licensed, in software speak) for a specific amount of uses.
So far as other compilations go, it would get much more difficult. I'm all in favor of making sure the people that put forth the time and money to compile these databases are the first ones in line to profit from their efforts, because they're not doing it as a public service. But some organizations, like network solutions (imo) are downright abusive in the way they withhold, or at least make unneccessarily difficult in accessing, their data.
I know. Information wants to be free. But this is a capitalistic society. If information does infact become free, then no one will gather information anymore.
So if the collection/compilation of facts can be protected with copyrights, or something similiar, then the only thing that can be written without using fair use (which may also go away under many proposals) will be fiction, opinion, and legal briefs. Will children have to pay a royalty to do a report when they have to look up an atomic weight in the CRC handbook? The border of compliation versus creative work has worked well for many decades, along with practices of fair use. Crossing or eliminating these will make the things they need to protect less valuable in the end as not being able to use them reduces their need and demand.
How would this relate to common facts (history, statistics, etc.), universal constants (the value of e, pi, avogadro's number, etc.) and there use once they are included in a protected work? We never remember them, we always look them up. I know this legislation is being pushed by people like stock exchanges and sports organizations to protect numbers that they spend money on, but the effects of protecting them become chilling on everything else.
I haven't read the proposed legislation, so I don't know how much of this comment is relevant...
No one can copyright a fact, such an address, birthdate, etc. However, someone can collect all that information into a database, and then copyright that specific information. But this copyrighting in no ways puts a copyright on any of the facts contained within it. If this proposed legislation changes this, then it is a very, very Bad Thing.
Unlike a patent, similar copyrighted works have the possibility of being created independently. And the law currently recognizes this. As of today, it is possible for more than one person to compile the same database independent of each other, and copyright each one separately. Take a look at a map of San Fransisco. Everything on it is public information. But take a look at the lower left (or right) corner. You'll see a copyright notice. There are more than one mapmaker who publishes maps of San Fransisco. Now take a look at your phone book. It's also copyrighted. But there are competing copyrighted phone books containing identical information. A phone book *IS* a database containing public domain facts. Now look at a dictionary...
Before everyone gets lathered up over copyrighting databases, please be aware that this has been going on for at least a few centuries. Sure the USPS has a copyrighted database of everyone's address. But nothing is stopping you from creating your own.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yes - I think that sometimes collecting together information which is "freely" available can lead to an invasion of privacy. This is because it can become possible to link together facts which build up a picture which is very much bigger than the sum of its parts.
One of the things which I felt the argument didn't cover as well as it could is the very different attitude to collections of personal data in the EU as compared with the US. This is certainly relevant to the issue of copyright in databases. One may limit the other.
Just in case people aren't aware - there are some very specific and detailed requirements for holding personal information the UK (and the rest of Europe).
Personal information is basically anything about identifiable individuals.
The Law is too complex to fully describe here - but I will give the main points
Databases must be licenced (although the licences are relatively cheap)
Data can only be collected from people if the people are told that Data is being collected and why.
Only the data relevant to the purpose can be stored in the Database ( an example of this was that everyone in the country was required to fill in a form wrt to new local taxes. these forms apparently required people to give their phone number. This was ruled to be wrong - because people didn't have a choice and the local government do not need people's phone numbers to collect tax)
People have a right to see what records are held on them and they have the right (enforced in various ways) to have errors abuot them corrected.
The Data must be held securely
And finally - and importantly - companies are not allowed to transfer data to other countries unless the safeguards above are effectively enforced.
The Copyright issue is tightly bound to at least some of those principles. If people can copy personal information and use it for their won purposes without reference it directly breaks some of the principles explained above.
There is an officer of Government in the UK called "The Data Protection Registrar" (DPR for short). The regsitrar and his staff have real teeth, are not afraid to use them and, on the whole, they are very popular with people - most people in the UK think the DPR does an important job.
I might be wrong, but I believe the situation in the USA is very different with "self regulation" being the norm for Data protection. Until the situation in the two regimes can be reconciled there are going to be fundamental problems with copyright on databases between the two systems.
More information abut the DPR in the UK can be found at http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/
And the "principles" are described at
http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/principl.htm
AJB
... I want to get really rich, so:
I propose we should patent something along the following lines:
"A system consisting of small entities with precisely defined properties, including properties such as charge, top, bottom, spin, 'colour', and mass, that, within a framework of rules can interact to construct arbitrarily complex other entities."
I'm sure you could get it past the US (or UK) patent office. Now that would be funny.
The plaintiff requires that the universe ceases to exist forthwith unless royalties are paid.
Anyone got a spare $50,000 to have a go? No-one can claim it's 'obvious', but it could get really nasty if a certain supernatural entity appeared in court to claim 'prior art'. Armageddon, anyone?
I have to say it but if all data is copyright of someone or something else and is intellectual property then all data will have to be redone with various research having to be reexamined. This is compeltely unacceptable. Is there a good enough database tool that would allow an individual to get a large quantity of data say now before any potential laws are actually passed and then have it become open sourced?
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Hold on a second... where does one draw the line. If the collection/compilation of facts can be protected with copyrights, or something similiar, then the only thing that can be written without using fair use (which may also go away under many proposals) will be fiction, opinion, and legal briefs. Will children have to pay a royalty to do a report when they have to look up an atomic weight in the CRC handbook?
The border of compliation versus creative work has worked well for many decades, along with practices of fair use. Crossing or eliminating these will make the things they need to protect less valuable in the end as not being able to use them reduces their need and demand.
How would this relate to common facts (history, statistics, etc.), universal constants (the value of e, pi, avogadro's number, etc.) and there use once they are included in a protected work? We never remember them, we always look them up. I know this legislation is being pushed by people like stock exchanges and sports organizations to protect numbers that they spend money on, but the effects of protecting them become chilling on everything else and eventually reach the level of absurd!
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
Its nice to see more works like this one making their way into the spotlight., However I think after witnessing the lawyers quoting Anonymous Cowards from slashdot that it won't be the overpaid analysts/experts that may sway judges treding the dark gloomy waters of the legalities of data collection and reverse engineering so much as it will be the people who post without thought in public forums who's pointed and often heated words will be used to attack the very community they hope to represent. Its an age old pratice of tactics of speech, we as a community need to be carefull how we present ourselves, and try to take notes on what the mainstream is thinking so we can know what they need to be educated on, if anything.
Yes, it does. Fundamentally, there is a difference between an organization that has a couple bits of data about me and an organization that has reams and reams of information about me-- the ability of the latter to extrapolate private information.
As an example, virtually everyone agrees that medical records should be private. Let's say that I go to my local pharmacy every month and spend $50 on some prescription drug. Given my HMO's publically available list of drug co-pays, you can determine a list of drugs I might be taking. Using information from the drug companies, you can determine a list of diseases I might have. Now, take a look at the articles I read on WebMD or one of the other health web sites. Correlate this with the probabilities with which these diseases occur among people of my age, race, gender, weight, locale, etc. Pretty soon, a lot of individually innocuous information will allow you to extrapolate private data, whether it's that I have AIDS, arthritis, or baldness. Do this for every member of my immediate family, and you can narrow the possibilities further.
In the past, we've been able to rely on the fact that the individual bits of data were spread among many organizations, each with their own proprietary format. The effort required in this regime to assemble the data above for any person was much higher than the expected reward. Today, more and more data is being consolidated under fewer and fewer roofs (i.e. DoubleClick). At the same time, technology is making it easier and easier to store and correlate this huge amount of data from various sources. Security through obscurity has begun to fail and people are recognizing that there isn't another line of defense.
While the above scenario may be unlikely, it's only for the reason that there's little use for the derived information today. The moment some organization (or individual) finds a way to profit from it, there's nothing to stop them from doing so.
"You suck!"
"Yes, but that fact is noted in my database, please pay me $30 for citing that fact."
"..."
Hmmm. Rights based on economics. If this ever made it into law, I can't see how it would be constitutional. [I have serious issues with the Digital Millenium copyright act here as well.]
Off the top of my head, it's like saying "my economic interest in protecting my database(d) information is more important than your right to
- freedom of the press,
- the Freedom of Information act which keeps most governmental documents accessible to the general public,
- free flow of medical research information
to name a few.I don't see how any more laws are needed. It's already against the law to pirate software (which is what virtually all databases are anyway). So for the database manufacturers to refer to the "data collections" as copyrightable seems disingenious to me.
Of course, there is the obligatory "we'll protect the public interest" clauses... "regulators and courts should balance database protection with an insistence on fair licensing and other promotion for competition." Except for one set of problems, I would say, "okee dokee fine." Regulators are noted for protecting the public interest, fair licences, or promoting competition.
The major points I think we should rally behind are that
- "...no one convincingly demonstrates that it is harmed by the lack of special laws." ,
- We may be entering an age when, as law professor Lawrence Lessig claims, "copyright is more effectively protected than at any time since Gutenberg...In such an age--in a time when the [technical] protections are being perfected--the real question for law is not, how can law aid in that protection? but rather, is the protection too great?"... and finally,
- "Privatizing information through contract, encryption, and similar devices may carry greater individual and social costs than would a copyright system."
BTW, in case anyone thinks I didn't read the whole article, I do understand the idea that a lot of work goes into the collection of "facts" that goes into a database, and that the work can be "freeloaded" via the web. There are other protections: I can put copyright notices on my web pages, disallow queries that do not originate from within a given site structure, etc. that do not require any new legislation to be effective.So IMHO the databases of facts do not require protection. The right to copyright "database facts" would seem to imply that if I create and a database of scientific facts, for example, I am somehow entitled to enforce my right to be the whole source of publishing that information -- just because I collected it first and got a copyright.
Let's hope (and contact your congressperson!!) that we can head this off before it starts another fight that the Internet community cannot afford to lose.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Regards,
January
p.s. Slashdotters who think there are too much patent and legal issues on /. lately, wave your hands!
But someone puts that information into a database and it becomes a violation of privacy?
Granted you should be able to decide if you want it readable, but how much do you really care? My birthday is important to me and I tell everyone ... call me egocentric, but I like presents :-)
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed