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.

Comments

Where's the "bad" part here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how this is a "bad idea." I've long felt it unfair that companies can simply take other databases and make them available publicly (such as anybirthday.com) and make money off it. An organization that puts significant work into compiling a database should be entitled to the same level of copyright protection as an organization creating any other work.

This law would simply close a legal loophole that prevented the application of copyright law to databases composed of "facts"--which currently cannot be copyrighted and are automatically forced into the public domain. Isn't it better to give the publishers of such databases a choice?

Re:Where's the "bad" part here?

[Assembler]

The problem is that easy access to information is almost assumed to be a right.

The answer is flamebait: either you like capitalism or you prefer a more socialist economy.

Since the US has aspects of both styles of economy built into it, the argument whether this service (the publication of databases of public domain data) should be provided by private industry or if it should be provided by the government.

Both sides of the argument have their strengths and weaknesses:
private industry is generally able to create final product more efficiently than a government, but there is a chance that the industry may exercise too much control over their final product (eg: charge too much, or only provide it to certain types of people. If the company providing the service becomes a monopoly, there is almost no limit to how far they can abuse their control.)

government is generally less efficient, but it benefits from being a monopoly that is (indirectly) under control of the people that use its service. No energy is wasted in duplicate efforts to produce the same thing.

choose your poison.

Re:Where's the "bad" part here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bad part here is that the information in question is not covered by copyright. You cannot copyright public information.

If some organization wants to compile a database of public information and use it privately, fine.

If they want to allow people to access such a database under contract that prevents divulging or mass copying of that data, fine.

If they want to stick that same database on the internet where anyone can access it for free but then get all whiney when someone harvests it all and makes their own competing database for free, not fine. Even if they post some sort of license for use (that most people won't even read) that prohibits harvesting it and using it in a competing database, tough titty. You stick something on the internet where anyone can access it in its entirety then it is fair game.

If copyright was allowed on such databases how long do you think it would be until some folks publishing a name/address/phone number directory got bought out by some cocksuckers like SCO who then proceeded to claim that since they held copyright over the database that anyone using names and addresses in said database would have to pay a license fee to use them?

Anyone feel like paying a license fee to use your own name and address?

Re:Where's the "bad" part here?

[aussersterne]

Of course they can sue you. If the information matches and they have a financial interest, watch them sue you, and watch them bend over backward to prove that you did copy it, even if they know very well (behind closed doors) that you didn't.

People can sue you for almost anything, it's all just paperwork. Yes, it has happened to me. No, it doesn't mean they'll win in court, and yes, you will have a chance to present your own case and evidence, but nine times out of ten if they're bigger and richer than you, they'll win somehow. In the meantime, if the court doesn't have enough clarity in the law to throw it out immediately, the legal nonsense ruins your days, sucks your money, and creates uncertainty about your plans and future.

Even if they don't win in court and they're not bigger than you and you can prove that you didn't copy anything from anyone, the perception and/or assertion that "our database is covered by copyright" can be a big stick used against little players. See SCO case. Now imagine your own personal SCO case.

But assuming that you are a lawyer, you will of course benefit from all of this, so it is difficult for me to help you to understand just how problematic strategic legal action from larger financial interests can be for the little guy. I learned really quick when I became a writer that "letter of law" and "reality of law" are two very different things.

Who thinks they can write this bill?

[Mrs. Grundy]

I don't know about you people, but I have lost all faith in the folks in Washington. They seem to be very good at a lot of things but are not especially good at writing legislation. So what do they do? They ask corporations what they would like and if they would be willing to help draft the language. It's outrageous.

Copyright law is designed to protect CREATIVE work. Data is not creative work and no matter how hard it may be to compile said data, it should not result in you owning the data to the exclusion of everyone else. There is no way anyone in Washington will be able to write this bill in such a way that it doesn't screw everybody except for the lawyers duking out infringement cases based on it.

With the internet data has become so easy to find and compile that just about anyone can do it. A lot of people have figured out that this spells trouble for their business plan that was invented in the fifties and are now trying to make a land grab of sorts to protect their bottom line.

more power for companies less pwr for people

[atarione]

Each time we turn around in the U.S. it appears that the power of coporations has grown..... at the expense of individual rights. Hopefully this will not pass, but it very well might. It is stupid the violations they say they wish to prevent are already covered by existing laws, reguarless of whether a database is involved or not.

btw wtf did happen to FAIR USE??????

feel free to quote me..... IF YOU WANNA BE SUED =)

Re:of course

[afra242]

As a non-American citizen living the US, I'm surprised at how many people constantly bash their government over stuff like this. Of course, I haven't lived all my life, but still...

If the US Govt. were only interested in money and companies that generate a lot, what about donotcall.gov?

I don't get it...

[Zakabog]

I broke down and read the article and I still don't understand what are they trying to protect? Is it the database model like how it's structured and named? That really doesn't make any sense. If I "stole" ebay's database (don't they have a massive database taking many file servers to hold?) what good would that do me? How can anyone make money off of copyrighting a database. It doesn't make any sense... I probably need to know way more about databases and how they work to understand this I guess. Or maybe a copy of PHB's For Non-Dummies to understand the buisiness model behind database copyrights.

Re:Current law

[aussersterne]

And why should big grabs of pre-existing data be protected?

I doubt the lobbies in favor of this sort of thing really believe that there is any sort of moral or ethical imperative to "protect" databases.

They're simply lobbying for this type of protection because they already have large databases and they think they might actually get it. If they do, they can pull an instant SCO and double or triple their revenue streams.

It's not about "this will be good for people", it's about "Heh... this is sort of slimy... but if we could pass it, our stock would double, so who cares!"

And for the politicians it's simply a matter of "This will piss off a few informed voters, but if the contributions are large enough, the $$$ will subsidize the buying of new voters to replace them with tons left over!"

CleanMoney

[Anonymous Coward]

Clean Money, the public financing of campaigns, can do a great deal to restore the balance of power back to the general interest- we the people.

To get an idea of just how corrupt the current political 'system' is, visit opensecrets.org Check out who is getting contributions from the 'entertainment industry' - so far this election cycle they've donated $4,962,581. Last cycle $39,887,442

We've managed to legalize bribery in the US. Instead of allowing special interests to buy politicians, why don't we finance elections with public money? I'm sure the savings we'd see from just a couple of the stupid laws that wouldn't get passed would more than offset the costs. Especially if the public airwaves were made avilable to candidates for free.

Re:Current law

[arkhan_jg]

The short answer is, these databases are composed of facts.

If the database is composed of copyrightable information; say, a web-based database of modern poems by various authors, where permission has been granted by the authors to publish in that format, gratis, then the database would be copyrighted, and the copyright would belong to the authors of the pieces. If it followed the music industry model, then copyright would be assigned to the database creator.

Either way, the contents of the database are copyrighted under current law. Think of a book anthology as a paper-based story database, and you get the idea.

On the other hand, almost all databases are actually composed of lists of facts, and that is what the original article is about; databases composed of publically available factual information. The individual facts are not copyrightable (that's what trademarks are for); there are good reasons why databases of such facts should not be copyrightable either.

The classic example is the phonebook. If a database of facts is copyrightable, how big does that database have to be? 200,000? 200? 2?

For example, your (small) company makes available its list of phone numbers in a flyer. The phonebook also contains those numbers. Who sues who for copyright infringement? The one who published it first is the winner, under copyright law.

How about a record companies list of artists and album names? Imagine, if every time you typed one of those in your email, you could be sued for copyright infringement - or if you publish a music newsletter for your school, every mention of artist or album name, you'd have to pay a licence fee to the record company involved.

Or, how about a real example. A website publishes lists of different prices for a product, culled from various companies sales flyers, thus allowing consumers to know where is selling what they want at the best price before they buy. That website posted scans of that information. Now imagine companies used the DMCA to force those scans to be taken down. The website was fatwallet.com, and the companies involved were numerous.
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/ 11/20/17532 38&tid=98)

Now imagine if instead of just having to take down the sales flyers, they had to shut down the site altogether, because lists of prices were copyrightable.

The law as it stands is perfectly fine; unless you make your money from selling lists of existing facts, and your lunch is getting eaten by other people giving that information away for free.

What I say to such companies is this - That's called competition. Adapt or die. If you can't make your lists more valuable than the people giving it away (quality, up to date info, prestige - just ask the bottled water people), or find other ways of funding it (adverts, paid for listings) then frankly, tough. Don't screw up the law for the rest of us.

It's copyright we can't tell you.

[wadiwood]

The proposed bill would provide a legal umbrella for publishers of factual information, such as courtroom decisions and professional directories, similar to the copyright laws that protect music, novels and other creative works.

If they protect court room decisions and perhaps legislation text and parliamentary proceedings (hansards), then perhaps we could start claiming "ignorance" as an excuse.

Next thing you know the copyright people will be persecuting anyone who has an online copy of the material like they do for music so there will be no more news reporting of court stuff or laws passed and your political representives will be completely unaccountable for their actions.

Perhaps someone could post the links to the your political representatives, all you USA slashdotters could enrol to vote and then complain to your reps LOUDLY.

On the other hand when people copy or publish databases and don't keep the data up to date, or mark it with a use by date eg credit references, or spammer black lists, then they should be arrested by the database police.

I suppose the usa government makes anti-competitive anti-capitalist pro-monopolist decisions daily, why should now be any different.

In Related news...

[segment]

Funny when I just read the following:

Almost everything is for sale on the Internet -- even the Social Security numbers of top government officials like CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft, consumer advocates warned Wednesday. The California-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights said for $26 each it was able to purchase the Social Security numbers and home addresses for Tenet, Ashcroft and other top Bush administration officials, including Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser. [ original story]

Can you say propaganda? Asscroft and his cabals are using this instance to promote the USA PATRIOT ACT which is odd considering some of the things he proposes will affect businesses... But wait let's call the kettle black now shall we?

When Border Patrol agents came across the corpses of 14 Mexican immigrants who died trying to cross the searing Arizona desert in 2001, a brand new tool helped U.S. authorities identify the bodies and, eventually, the smugglers who abandoned them.

The tool was a database containing the personal information of 65 million voting-age Mexican citizens. The U.S. government bought access to it for $1 million a year from a giant data vendor called ChoicePoint.

U.S. drug and immigration investigators prized the data, accorting to the Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement sources, because it gave them latitude to track suspects inside Mexico without alerting local authorities. original article)

Where's Tyler Durden when we need him most

Re:of course

[Alsee]

Doesn't whoever put the data there in the first place deserve the rights over that information[?]

If I measure the speed of light first should I get some sort of rights over that information?

Copyright SPECIFICLY does not apply to facts. We are seeing a mad rush of people trying to expand copyright law in all sorts of ways, and virtually all of them lead to severly broken law. Original copyright was a carefully balanced and extremely limited beast. Copyright contains countless limitations and restrictions for damn good reasons. Unfortunately congress appears to have completely forgotten those reasons and lobbiests don't give a damn how harmful a law is if they can make a buck off of it.

-

First Hand Experience

[NibbleAbit]

I once owned such a database. It was a collection of every publically elected official in the nation (from school board trustees up to federal representatives). It took a few years to collect al the information, and since I'm not teribbly good at marketing, I had to close it about 10 years ago.

At the time, I never thought of any of the information in the database as being copyrighted. The format it was presented in certainly was, and I would have been upset if someone with better marketing skills just took my research (and data entry costs) and republished it, but I don't think I would have minded at all if they took exerpts and republished (it is freely availabe information anyway). Don't know if anyone cares, but that is my thoughts.