Slashdot Mirror
Congress Again Considering Database Protection Bill
An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo News is reporting on a new bill in Congress: '... a proposed bill that would prevent wholesale copying of school guides, news archives and other databases which do not enjoy copyright protection.'" The idea of database protection legislation has been kicking around for a long time. It's a bad idea, but it would make a lot of money for a few companies, so they keep pushing it, and no doubt will eventually get it passed.
That's why database protection is not the same as copyright protection. Database right is normally more restricted in duration (eg, 15 years in the uk) and in scope.
Your hypothetical database "Names of Professional Writers of Manhattan and their Phone Numbers" would not infringe upon the "Names and Phone Numbers of all Manhattan residents" database; but other people would not be allowed to redistributed your database without your permission.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Read this for an overview of the database protection act in the UK. There are also a few case studies of when the act was invoked.
The interesting and slightly worrying part is that even if the data is available to the public online, either in part or in full, it is still protected.
Is known as the database directive
When reading the directive, remember that the only the articles really have force, not the recitals. A quick selection of quotes:
'database` shall mean a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means.
[...]
The copyright protection of databases provided for by this Directive shall not extend to their contents and shall be without prejudice to any rights subsisting in those contents themselves.
[...]
the author of a database shall have the exclusive right to carry out or to authorize:
(a) temporary or permanent reproduction[...]
(b) translation, adaptation[...]
(c) any form of distribution to the public[...]
Member States shall have the option of providing for limitations on the rights set out in Article 5 in the following cases:[...]
(d) where other exceptions to copyright which are traditionally authorized under national law are involved
[...]
SUI GENERIS RIGHT
Article 7
Object of protection
1. Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database.
[...]
The right provided for in Article 7 shall run from the date of completion of the making of the database. It shall expire fifteen years from the first of January of the year following the date of completion.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
lets take this example from the article.
"In one instance, a Minnesota magazine publisher had no legal recourse when its entire directory of local schools was copied and redistributed. In other cases, pornographic Web site operators have copied real-estate listings and lawyers' directories to lure unwitting visitors, he said. " This is online, and apparently it is totally Legal and O.K. to do that. But why? Many years ago (5) i wanted to take the entire compiled Car Stereo and Electronics componant directory (like, 300-400 pages), turn it into a database where people can search for things online. Now i knew that to just go and do that was illegal because i would of been publishing copyrighted information without the authors consent (which i actually did get an Ok to do this).
The directory was compiled and created from public information (calling the manu. and getting specs and prices), but because I did not or take part in creating the directory itself.
The Information contained in the directory is not copyrighted, but the entire directory in itself is whats copyrighted.
If I spent xx time creating a listing of schools in the area, and someone else came along and copied that listing exactly how i had created, i would be pretty upset.
This has nothing to do with 'OMG RIAA SUCKS' or 'USA IS BOUGHT BY CORPORATIONS OMG IM MOVING TO CANADA'. The companies that create products, provide services and distribute invaluable information and other data have EVERY SAME right that the people of this country do.
I follow the SDK and GDN principles.. Spelling Dont Kount, Grammer Dont Neither
...in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991). Fesit copied portions of Rural's phone directory to create their own, competing product after Rural refused permission to use it. The Court noted that "sweat of the brow" (i.e. effort alone) is not sufficient to justify copyright protection: there must be an element of creativity as well, and arranging the entries in alphabetical order is not creativity. I'm not a USian but this seems a useful thing to quote in your letters to Congress critters...