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.
because telemarketers calling during dinner became a problem that affected politicians directly. Problems that don't affect them directly and immediately are largely ignored (eg: microsoft's monopoly, the riaa as acting as a governmen-sanctioned vigilante, air pollution, inner-city crime, etc)
But take a look at copyright. The idea behind copyright is that creative work is good for our culture. Ideally it would be free to anyone, but then there would be no incentive to create. Maybe artists would create anyway but rather than risk a bunch of starving painters and writers perhaps we can find a balance between what is good for society (free unencumbered access of work of cultural importance and the ability to make derivative work) and what is good for the artist. Copyright does this by giving the artist a limited amount of time to control the work. Culture doesn't suffer too much because the term is (or used to be ) limited and the artist can have a stab at making a living. It's a balance.
Now look at this case. The availability of data--court records for instance--is of fundamental importance to a free society. Striking a balance between the public and the collators of this information will be much trickier. It is much more critical than a novel or play and it diminishes in value to the public over time. While a Melville novel still holds cultural value, court records from Melville's time won't help us police our judicial system. Once someone has control over public information, they can charge what they like for it, withhold it, and prevent others from publishing it. That is a recipe for abuse and for very expensive information.
Also consider where the data comes from. A quote from the Yahoo article:
Backers of the measure say it would allow database providers to protect themselves against those who simply cut and paste their databases and resell them, or make them available for free online.
So they don't want somebody cutting a pasting. Where exactly did the providers get the information in the first place? They cut and paste it from somewhere else. And that is the point...they didn't create the information. It does not belong to them. It is public. And by giving them license to control it and prevent others from using it we lose something very valuable, of critical interest to everyone and give it to a handful so they may profit. It just isn't worth it.
This is laughable. From where did "database providers" get THEIR information? (By cutting and pasting someone else's database of course.)
Collecting publicly available information and presenting it in a useful format does require investment may provide users value - this what search engines like Google do - but it seems to me that it should be HOW this information is collected and presented - rather than the information itself which needs to be protected.
In essence copyright protects format, not content. Google can patent the way they collect information and copyright they way they present information, but they can't claim ownership to the information itself.
If protection is extended to content, it would seem to me to be an entirely new class of intellectual property which, at least in the US, would have no Constitutional basis and which the US Congress should have no authority to create.