Congress Again Considering Database Protection Bill

Where's the "bad" part here? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-05 19:44 · Score: 1, Interesting

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? by Mrs.+Grundy · 2003-09-05 20:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

On the surface it does make some sense. You work hard to come up with something and somebody just walk in takes it and starts to sell it themselves.
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.
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by Assembler · 2003-09-05 20:11 · Score: 1, Interesting

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-05 20:20 · Score: 1, Interesting

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? by aussersterne · 2003-09-05 20:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem is that most databases are simply lists of facts. Give someone ownership of a database, and you have given them ownership of the facts; it's not at all like traditional copyrights over prose or over music, which are designed to protect expressive, artistic content.

Imagine that you decide to make a database called "Names of Professional Writers of Manhattan and their Phone Numbers". You spend ten years of your life calling for and assembling submissions from writers and you finally make your list available for free on your Web site only to get sued the very next day by the company who makes the phone book... because your data is a subset of their copyrighted database of all Manhattan phone numbers, too large a subset to be covered by fair use.

You have to either pay them to publish the information that you found, or you have to take it offline.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by Magic+Thread · 2003-09-05 20:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Legal loophole my foot. Copyright law is supposed to apply to creative work, nothing else. And the point of copyright law is to advance society in general, not the people who make creative stuff (the only reason we do anything for them is so that they'll make more creative stuff).
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by BobTheLawyer · 2003-09-05 21:35 · Score: 1

you are misunderstanding copyright law. If you haven't *copied* their copyrighted database then they cannot sue you for breaching their *copyright*.
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by cperciva · 2003-09-05 21:41 · Score: 2, Informative

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
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by arose · 2003-09-05 21:42 · Score: 1

Copyright law is supposed to apply to creative work, nothing else.
Noe why do you think they use the term intelectual property? Bluring the lines is an effective tactic.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by aussersterne · 2003-09-05 21:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by Blue+Stone · 2003-09-05 22:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

[serious point follows satire]
As a farmer, I know how appaling theft of intellectual property can be. I selectively breed plants, spend much time and effort to produce healthy and unique plants, and then people can come along and take them, use them for their own purposes, profit from them and all without rewarding my efforts and ingenuity.
Society needs to realise that everything should be owned. Look at all those programs that use your presence in a crowd, say at a local sporting event, to profit. What do you see for your contribution? Nothing. And that needs to change.
Sniff my fart? I spent money on expensive and rich foodstuffs, and yet you inhale my methane for free. Where's the justice?
[serious stuff]
Extensions of the scope of copyright monopoly, are logical to the concept of intellectual property, and in being extended they reveal the underlying absurdity of the concept.
The concept is itself a hack, a convenience invented for a greater good, a "necessary evil" but it is only a good in it's restrained form. Extended to information and facts, it reveals it's malignant core: ownership of eveything that is naturally free and available to all, now only at a price.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by Blue+Stone · 2003-09-05 22:55 · Score: 1

"But its not free. Companies and individuals can spend millions of dollars to compile that information."
Well suppose I have gained insight into how to deal with abusive people, and I could tell you a trick to do that, which would change your life, but I've only got that insight and knowlege through extensive abuse at the hands of these people: does that mean I should have copyright on the information just because I gained that info at significant cost?
Here's a good example. If you're jumped at by a badly-behaved dog, and you're scared witless, fold your arms, look up at the sky, and do not respond to the dog. The dog will simmer down after a little confusion, and won't bother you any more.
Suppose I risked my life, with many dog-bites and maulings to uncover that information - great cost to myself. Logically if information is able to be copyrighted bacause the compilers can expend significant resources to acquire it, the information about dogs should be similarly protected. Otherwise, what's my motivation to share?

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by Artifakt · 2003-09-06 03:32 · Score: 1

One of the major goals of this is to require the federal government to compile databases by its own rules, and not buy commercial databases that don't. For example, inside the government, census info about race isn't supposed to be available to the IRS, which presumably has no legitimate reason to need it. Currently, the law has been relaxed somewhat, to let the FBI and others get info about people that is only very tangentially related to crime prevention. Letting these agencies get even further around these limits by buying commercial databases IS a bad idea.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by BobTheLawyer · 2003-09-06 05:53 · Score: 1

I'm an English IP lawyer. We've had database rights for years. I'm not aware of any abuses. Then again, our litigation system isn't anywhere near as out of control as yours (assuming you're in the US).

In the fucked-up world of American litigation, if someone wants to sue you then they will. This is not an argument against database rights.
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by gregfortune · 2003-09-06 07:23 · Score: 1

Ok, so let's follow your logic out step by step.
1) The purpose of copyright law is to advance society in general.
2) Copyright holders receive advantages/compensation to encourage them to create more stuff.
3) Huge leap
4) Copyright law isn't supposed to advance the people who make create stuff.

So if copyright law is meant to advance society and its mechanism for doing that is to provide incentive to the creators, how would you imagine that copyright law is not meant to benifit creators? If you think it's an evil that's fine. Either way, it's a necessity if 1 and 2 hold.

Now, that's what I call a loop(hole) :)
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by Magic+Thread · 2003-09-06 07:35 · Score: 1

Oh, it benefits the creators, all right, but you have to remember that's not the reason for its existence. When lawmakers forget that, we get stupid shit like the DMCA.
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by gregfortune · 2003-09-06 10:41 · Score: 1

Then what is the reason? The entire mechanism of copyright relies on the idea that the creators need encouraged and protected. That's the whole flipping point and the *entire* means to the end. Yes, it benefits the creators. It is meant to be that way.

We got DMCA because large companies needed to lock up their products even tighter to drive up income, not because lawmakers forgot something. It was lobbied into place with very large sums of money. Don't confuse the DMCA issues with copyright issues. They are related, but not one in the same.

Copyright extensions, on the other hand, are in place because of very large sums of money *and* because lawmakers forgot that copyright is supposed to only provide *encouragment*, not a promise of enternal income. (Do some research on Disney and Mickey Mouse) Copyright was built with termination in mind and that has recently been ignored.

Irregardless, that points out a flaw in the *usage* of copyright and does not validate your claim that the reason isn't to encourage creators.
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? by holt · 2003-09-06 12:26 · Score: 1

Irregardless, that points out a flaw in the *usage* of copyright and does not validate your claim that the reason isn't to encourage creators.

Irregardless isn't a word. If it were a word, it would mean that one of the choices is held in regard; that is, the opposite of regardless.

HTH. HAND.

Who thinks they can write this bill? by Mrs.+Grundy · 2003-09-05 19:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Who thinks they can write this bill? by ScrewMaster · 2003-09-06 01:54 · Score: 1

The Internet (and modern computing and telecommunications in general) spell trouble for a lot of outmoded business models. This kind of creative destruction has occurred throughout the history of the Industrial Revolution (blacksmiths, carriage-builders, gas light manufacturers, you name it.) What makes this century so different is that corporations aren't taking the traditional two ways toward fixing their business model when obsolesced by new technology. These are a. have a going out of business sale or b. stay in business by looking ahead and changing the way you do business. Instead, they have taken a "maintain the status quo at all costs" approach which includes buying undue influence in the Federal Government. This kind of influence peddling has gone on for a long time, it's true (corruption is hardly a new problem) but the difference is that, this time, key elements of U.S. law are being rewritten to serve a very few to the detriment of the rest of us. All of us.

What it will take to put the brakes on this kind of treasonous or near-treasonous activity I don't know, but at a minimum it will involve long prison terms.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

more power for companies less pwr for people by atarione · 2003-09-05 19:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 =)

--
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.

Re:more power for companies less pwr for people by ScooterBill · 2003-09-06 04:54 · Score: 1

Absolutely this type of legislation protects the interests of large corporations.

The question I have is how does this benefit the average citizen?

After all, corporations are not entitled to representation in congresss and yet we constantly get legislation in their favor. Write your congressperson and leet them know you don't approve of legislation that only helps special interests.

M

Re:of course by afra242 · 2003-09-05 19:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

Re:of course by AJWM · 2003-09-05 19:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's the ongoing battle of special interests vs general or diffuse interest. On the whole, the general interest of the population to be able to copy databases is probably worth more than the money that a few companies can make from copyrighting them.

Let's say (to pull some numbers out of the air) that DB copying is worth about $1 apiece to everyone in the country (total nearly $300M), but only $50M apiece to three companies to prevent it. $300M beats $150M, right?

Alas, those three companies might be willing to put up $1M each ($3M) in lobbying efforts, but only a tiny fraction of the general population would be willing to give up the 1 cent each to match that (besides which, overhead on trying to collect that would kill it).

Thus the political power tends to accrue to the special interests -- however diverse those special interests might be -- to the detriment of the general interest.

--
-- Alastair

I don't get it... by Zakabog · 2003-09-05 19:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

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:I don't get it... by Assembler · 2003-09-05 20:18 · Score: 1

The databases they are talking about are sites like eLibrary that simply have arrangements with all the world's periodicals to archive their articles. eLibrary then charges a fee to access their collection of old articles.
Re:I don't get it... by pmz · 2003-09-08 07:39 · Score: 1

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?

It would only help you if you cared about their trade secrets. Copyrighting is irrelevant; either the data is proprietary or it isn't.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

Re:of course by Assembler · 2003-09-05 19:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

I find it rediculous when companies try to charge for access to their news archives (eg: nytimes). For the most part, the only articles that are of interest to anyone are those that are from the current edition. The current articles are mainly read for pleasure. I can understand paying for that.

However, old articles are only of interest to people doing research. I can think of no single activity that advances civilization faster than research. Research leads to understanding, which leads to improvements on old ideas. I believe that any time someone has the desire to research something, that desire shouldn't be hindered in any way. Access to databases of old news articles should be free.

surprised? by turkeyphant · 2003-09-05 19:52 · Score: 1

what about donotcall.gov?

HAHAHAHA.

Surely you're not that gullible?

--
Turkeyphant

Re:of course by Assembler · 2003-09-05 19:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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)

Re:Helpless. by HBI · 2003-09-05 20:04 · Score: 1

When are we going to start putting people against the wall?

Envision a situation where enough people would care about the shitty situation right now to overcome the power of the state.

Didn't think you could. That's your answer: never. Society in the US is constructed in such a way that, even when there is injustice, the general public is too apathetic to get too worked up about it. As long as beer is available, the football games go on, and the soap operas keep running, the body politic is fat and satiated.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Ever watch "Dark Angel"? by msobkow · 2003-09-05 20:07 · Score: 1

When the miserable future of "Dark Angel" has been made real by corporate greed and government jack-boots, then the US citizens might try to rise up and retake the freedom they so foolishly keep letting go.

By the time they wake up to what they're doing to themselves, the American Apparatchik will be too firmly entrenched. They will of course claim to be capitalists in a democracy, but you won't be able to tell the difference in the common citizen's life.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Current law by porkface · 2003-09-05 20:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why can't current law apply. If a database contains original authored work and isn't just a big grab of available data from many sources, why shouldn't existing copyright law apply?

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

Just because it's on a computer is no reason to get stupid about how law applies.

Re:Current law by aussersterne · 2003-09-05 20:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

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!"

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Re:Current law by arkhan_jg · 2003-09-05 21:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Re:Current law by kfg · 2003-09-05 21:27 · Score: 1

"Just because it's on a computer is no reason to get stupid about how law applies."

Ah, but what if you were already stupid to begin with?

KFG
Re:Current law by dirk · 2003-09-06 03:05 · Score: 1

While I agree with you, I think there should be some protection from wholesale copying of the database. I think what most companies are worried about is them spending thousands of dollars compiling the facts in the database, and once they put it online, someone comes along and just copies it for nothing. I remember claims about this with I think TV guide type websites. One company compiled the list and put it on their site (which was a revenue stream for them) and then another site just ripped the contents and put it on their site. I don't think the complaint is about other people having similar databases. They don't care if 2 people have the same phone number in their databases, they want to make sure no one steals their database and just reuses that instead of creating their own.

--

"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Re:Current law by matfud · 2003-09-06 04:05 · Score: 1

>databases are composed of facts.

I think that "composed" is the key word here.

The data in the database may be entirly factual. however
the composition of it is not factual. Somone went to
a lot of effort (or perhaps just a small amount of effort) to collate and create the database. They
may deserve some form of protection of this
investment. After all if the data in the DB was derived
from the public domain then you can compile your
own DB from the original data. This should not give
you the right to just copy someone elses DB and
the value that they added to the original data by
compiling it.

I don't think they are discussing Copyright. I believe
that they are considering the creation of a new law
to cover DB's.

matfud
Re:Current law by arkhan_jg · 2003-09-06 05:52 · Score: 1

OK, I do feel somewhat of a twinge for the poor sods who have their hard work stolen, and used by someone for nothing. I've been in a similar situation myself.

The problem is, if a law is passed, it WILL be broad enough to allow other companies to twist it, and use to keep their customers in the dark about their product (remember the EULA clause from microsoft trying to prevent publishing benchmarks), or to stop their competition getting a foothold in the market.

The latter part is in fact why databases were decided not to be copyrightable in the first place. The phone companies sued third party phonebook creators for copyright infringement, and lost. Part of the judgment was that databases of fact were not copyrightable.

Basically, I agree with the judge - the cost of allowing lists of facts to copyrightable is too high.

--
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Re:Current law by Zleeper · 2003-09-07 13:43 · Score: 1

So then in your model, the copier of a database can reuse a database as long as he changes it? So, if I then added the word Mr or Ms. in front of every entry in the phone book, I have in effect created a new database, and one that is now protected for me?
The issue is that a database of 5 listings on your brochure is readable with one's eyes, and needs no NOVEL software (Copyrightable) to interface with it. These supposed database we are talking about are huge and require coding and software that is in itself copyrightable, and in effect making their use protected. I assume one could go after a copier of a database for copyright infringement if they are able to read their passworded or specailly constructed database because they are violating the copyright on the ability to read the data in the first place.

Don't you dare comment! by Michael's+a+Jerk! · 2003-09-05 20:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you're taking the time to write a comment on this story, DON'T. Instead, take that same amount of time to write a one page, reasoned, intelligent letter to your Senators (you have two, you know that?) telling them that you disapprove of this bill, telling them WHY (privacy violation, overextension of copyright, and so forth are good places to start), and encouraging them to work against it. Not tomorrow morning, RIGHT NOW. Get away from that Submit button and go write a letter to someone who could actually do something. Then send it snail mail to their LOCAL office (not DC office), or fax it. (Not email. Many offices don't pay attention to email, although some do.)

I don't want to see any replies to this post. Get away from Slashdot and do something other than whine, or you'll have no one to blame but yourself.

Are you still here? Stop reading and start acting!

--

I'm not Seth.

Re:Don't you dare comment! by kfg · 2003-09-05 21:53 · Score: 1

I'm from NY. We only have one.

KFG
Re:Don't you dare comment! by MikeCT · 2003-09-05 23:27 · Score: 1

Not being from the U.S., I don't have any senators (and I can't afford to buy any either).
Re:Don't you dare comment! by donutz · 2003-09-06 04:02 · Score: 2

If you're taking the time to write a comment on this story, DON'T. Instead, take that same amount of time to write a one page, reasoned, intelligent letter to your Senators (you have two, you know that?) telling them that you disapprove of this bill, telling them WHY (privacy violation, overextension of copyright, and so forth are good places to start), and encouraging them to work against it.

Good sentiment, but the article states that this is a bill in the House of Representatives. Since the bill isn't up for vote on the floor yet, write to a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, who "will hold a joint hearing on the bill in the coming weeks". My congressman, Rep. Christopher Cox, is on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I've emailed him before (got a boilerplate response but it was about the issue I emailed and agreeing with my position). Let him and the other committee members know they've got the support of their constituents!

Email your congresspersons! Write them! Phone them! Fax them....just don't only whine about it on Slashdot...whine about it to someone who can make a difference!

Re:Helpless. by Assembler · 2003-09-05 20:13 · Score: 1

Welcome to the fall of Rome..

Re:of course by harriet+nyborg · 2003-09-05 20:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

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.

And yet, somehow, I don't think this'll do much.. by TyrranzzX · 2003-09-05 20:43 · Score: 1

Go onto any filesharing app and there's a plethora of books on any subject you could possibly want. Pr0n, stories, information, research, etc.

Will this do much to stop the flow of information? Not for anyone who has an internet connection and the know-how to use it. >:)

--

Candy-Coated Knowledge

Re:of course by sjbcfh · 2003-09-05 20:58 · Score: 1

I find it rediculous when companies try to charge for access to their news archives (eg: nytimes). For the most part, the only articles that are of interest to anyone are those that are from the current edition. The current articles are mainly read for pleasure. I can understand paying for that.

But the Times doesn't charge for access to current articles. Sure, you've got to register to do so, but how many people bitch about even that?

Personally, I have no problem with them making a little on the side by charging for access to their archives. It's not like its a new idea; many newspapers have been charging for access to their morgues and for physical copies of back issues and old articles for years.

Re:of course by maharg · 2003-09-05 21:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is laughable. From where did "database providers" get THEIR information? (By cutting and pasting someone else's database of course.)

If you extrapolate your assertion to the logical conclusion, then what you are saying is that no-one put the information (represented as data) into the original database. Doesn't whoever put the data there in the first place deserve the rights over that information, assuming that it was not in the public domain, and that they wish to excercise said rights ?

--

$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.

Re:of course by William+G.+Davis · 2003-09-05 21:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

This has nothing to do with the NY Times. All of the Times' articles in their database are copyrighted; you can't reproduce them without consent.

This bill is intended to protect compilations of non-copyrightable material such as, oh say, court opinions and statutes, like Westlaw and LexisNexis.

Interestingly enough, Thompson-West--though they can't copyright the opinions themselves--claims copyright on the page numbers of their bound volumes of the Federal Reporter, Federal Supplement, and other series of publications which all contain court opinions from various jurisdictions (they're typically the only place in which hard copies of opinions are actually published), thus stopping competitors from digitizing these books (with internal, citable page numbers in them) and creating their own databases. See Who owns the Law?

It's copyright we can't tell you. by wadiwood · 2003-09-05 21:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--

-- it must be true, it's on the internet.

this is a bit silly by BobTheLawyer · 2003-09-05 21:37 · Score: 1

We've had database rights in Europe since 1996 and the sky doesn't seem to have fallen down.

Can any of the gloom-and-doom mongers point to any abuses of the law in Europe? (other, that is, than a general dislike and/or misunderstanding of copyright law)

Re:this is a bit silly by Ulven · 2003-09-05 22:00 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

The judge rejected these arguments, ruling that to extract merely meant to transfer to another medium and dismissing as irrelevant the availability of the data via the BHB web site. (My emphasis)
Re:this is a bit silly by harriet+nyborg · 2003-09-06 00:26 · Score: 1

other, that is, than a general dislike and/or misunderstanding of copyright law
Well, Bob, I am not a lawyer, but I don't really see how this has anything to do with copyright.
First, the database information which is being discussed in the article, is assumed to be in the public domain. Laws, for example, pulished by the EU Parliament are not protected by copyright and may freely be copied and distributed by anyone.
The issue, as I understand it, is that if someone takes the time and trouble to publish these laws on a website, I should be prevented from using their website as a source for setting up my own website containing the same information.
If I restrict the material which I cut and paste to ONLY the non-copyrighted text, then I have violated no copyright, although I have indeed availed myself of the result of someone else's hard work.
I see the argument of database providers - that there should be some incentive to collect and present publicly available information - but I do not see how this can be done without creating a new class of intellectual property.
Re:this is a bit silly by BobTheLawyer · 2003-09-06 06:02 · Score: 1

the data isn't protected: the database is protected - that's the whole point of database rights.

The William Hill case they mention seems perfectly just to me. Why should they be able to filch off someone else's work?
Re:this is a bit silly by BobTheLawyer · 2003-09-06 06:14 · Score: 1

You say you "do not see how this can be done". Well, it has been done.

Database rights in the EU are effectively a subset of copyright. Created the same way (i.e. automatically). Breached in the same way (i.e. by copying). Enforced in the same way.
Re:this is a bit silly by BobTheLawyer · 2003-09-06 13:29 · Score: 1

compiling with other means is fine.

copying someone else's work isn't.

the difference is clear to me morally and economically, and I don't see why it shouldn't be legally.
Re:this is a bit silly by BobTheLawyer · 2003-09-08 09:13 · Score: 1

You are attacking a straw man.

THEY use the RIAA approach .... by leoaugust · 2003-09-05 21:53 · Score: 1

"If database producers know they have some law to fall back on when someone steals their database, they'll be much more willing to get that information out there for free," he said. "Without that law, there's really nothing to protect them."

It is like the allegation of the RIAA that if the artists cannot derive their income from these 5 major record companies, they might be less "willing" to create new music. B.S. Here too a similar wishy-washy justifcation is used to convince the state to become the whores of these "middlemen" between the data and the consumers of the data.

If they can comandeer the law apparatus of the state, and the consequent police infrastructure that comes along as a part of the deal to implement the law, they are saying that they might be "willing" to offer the information for free. Though I think the reality will be that once you can "protect your data" then you will start charging for it. Can I compile another telephone directory ? And even if I can compile it again how does this "output" benefit society as well because it is just unnecessary duplication ?

Data passes thru a tool to become information, information passes thru a person to become knowledge, and knowledge passes thru the syystem to become action.

And worse, the actions in this case and those of RIAA kill off a class of products and stiffles innovation. I would lke the same data not only to be available in different formats, but also in different context - and sometimes in unexpected context. And these different formats are born when companies use the same data, and provide the ability to manage data with their software tools and websites. They are now helping string together this data into information by allowing you differnt options of viewing, and also placing it in a unique context based on the data and information that surrounds this display.

Thus, in the shortsighted vision we will be willing to sacrifice a host of information-building tools, and a host of knowledge-enabling tools - all to satisfy the people who are making these data-collections tools. Data passes thru a tool to become information, information passes thru a person to become knowledge, and knowledge passes thru the system to become action. All this is being blocked, because the people with the data - are now wanting to hoard it and thus preventing everything built upon it.

--
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies ...

In Related news... by segment · 2003-09-05 21:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
MoFscker

Re:of course by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2003-09-05 22:15 · Score: 1

assuming that it was not in the public domain

And where did you get that idea from? The whole point is that the original data *is* in the public domain.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

The European version by infolib · 2003-09-05 23:08 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Depends on the wording by Talthane · 2003-09-05 23:53 · Score: 1

As others have pointed out, we have this in the EU (UK) already and it hasn't been egregiously abused. The reasoning behind has nothing to do with cut and paste - it's about protecting the effort the owner has made to collect/assemble that particular set of information. Database protection extends fifteen years, but even before that, anyone can market a similar collection - assuming they assembled it themselves.

So it depends on the wording of the US bill. The UK version is more akin to copyright - this particular collection is mine, and you can't pass it off as yours. If the US bill is more like patents - nobody else can collect this information, ever - then you're sunk.

So I'd suggest checking the wording before you mouth off. If it's only a protection of that particular company's particular effort, there may be little to worry about.

--
"This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.

How would Europeans solve this? by svennieboy · 2003-09-06 00:01 · Score: 1

If you all are so afraid of this Bill being passed in Congress, why don't you learn something from how things are going here in Europe about software patents?

If you try to educate Joe Average about how bad this is for them, maybe close down a few (by which I mean a lot) websites and arrange for a protest to be held in front of the White House, maybe you can stop this Bill from passing?
At least you may be able to delay the voting for a month and buy more time to educate people and have them write to their people in the Congress.

Just to make things clear, I'm a Belgian myself. So if any of the things I stated above are not feasable or doable, it's because I don't know the way things are done in the USA in detail.
If you are already sure that this Bill is going to pass, you can do nothing but wait and see just that happening. But IMHO a better way is to let those who make your laws know you don't want this Bill to be passed. Let people know just why this is so bad for them.
If the members of the Congress don't want to listen to the people who voted for them, but just to the large companies who are going to make a lot of money from this Bill, then there is a serious problem in your democratic system. Laws are made for the people, not for a few big companies to increase their profit.

Sven

--
-- Slackware linux... because wizards are for wussies

Re:of course by harriet+nyborg · 2003-09-06 00:12 · Score: 1

Doesn't whoever put the data there in the first place deserve the rights over that information, assuming that it was not in the public domain, and that they wish to excercise said rights ?

If you read my response before answering, you would have noticed that I was discussing publicly available information.

My point is that - if the information itself is public domain - that collecting this and presenting it on a website should not confer any rights of ownership to said information to database... which appears to be the objective of the pending legislation.

The original copyright owners should in every instance retain reasonable control of their copyrighted material.

IANAL, but by spektr · 2003-09-06 00:18 · Score: 4, Funny

"In other cases, pornographic Web site operators have copied real-estate listings and lawyers' directories to lure unwitting visitors, he said. The law could help those who make information available for free online, said Kupferschmid."

Do we really need a law that allows porno-sites to sue house-owners and lawyers when they download their online resources?

"If database producers know they have some law to fall back on when someone steals their database, they'll be much more willing to get that information out there for free,"

I see. The classic SCO-ploy.

"Violators could be shut down and be forced to pay triple the damages they incurred."

...and this, your honour, is why I believe that this lawyer copied my client's porno-database!
Judge: I'm disgusted. Shoot him down with quad damage!
Lawyer: You are transgressing the law!
Judge: I'm exaggerating. Frag this bastard.

-- On a second thought, let's not pass this - it's a silly law...

What is really wrong with this bill ? by sweede · 2003-09-06 00:49 · Score: 1, Informative

Sorry, but i dont see how this bill is really anything new or how it is 'hurting' our freedom?

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

Re:What is really wrong with this bill ? by ScrewMaster · 2003-09-06 02:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh for ... all right, fine. If they have the same rights as everyone else, let them enforce those rights under the same laws! I am so God damned sick and tired of every pissant little group or corporation whining about how it, and only it, needs special legal protection from the Internet because {insert stupid fradulent claim here}. That's pure baloney, my friend. People and/or corporations do not need protection from the Internet. The Internet needs protection from them. And as we allow these selfish little bloodsucking bottomfeeders to impair the utility of the Internet, we all suffer. Other major inventions such as the wheel, the printing press, spacecraft, the computer, the laser, or even air conditioning have not had such a profound, positive effect upon every culture on the planet virtually overnight. The Internet should be protected as the important global resource that it is, and if that means that private concerns can't "protect" their public domain databases as much as they would like, so be it.

The irony here is that it isn't difficult to control access to a database. Sure, if you are foolish enough to leave your entire database on an open FTP server, you should expect someone to grab it in its entirety. But if you provide access via a Web server or other programmatic front end, it's virtually impossible for someone to acquire your entire dataset. You, as the database "owner", have control of how and when your information is accessed. Consequently, I don't really understand the need for additional laws on the subject.

On the other hand, if you publish a database of readily-available public-domain records, you should have no recourse when someone uses that data, unless you have a contract with that party spelling out usage constraints. None of this requires any modification to law, merely awareness and enforcement of existing ones.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:What is really wrong with this bill ? by arkanes · 2003-09-06 02:52 · Score: 1

The simple answer: it wasn't copyrighted. You could have done it without permission.
Re:What is really wrong with this bill ? by sweede · 2003-09-06 13:27 · Score: 1

Yes, it IS copyrighted material. printed documents, especially magazines, are copyrighted materials unless they specificly state that you can re-distribute the data.

i print up dozens of magazines that have data as such (we recently printed a manufactuers directory for a medical product magazine) and all of them specificly say that reproduction of that material is NOT legal without permission of the publisher.

I still dont see why because it is online it should be exempt from the copyright laws.

--
I follow the SDK and GDN principles.. Spelling Dont Kount, Grammer Dont Neither
Re:What is really wrong with this bill ? by arkanes · 2003-09-08 10:49 · Score: 1

Simple lists of facts are not copyrightable. If you're reproducing the pages themeselves, then you're in violation. If you're data mining product numbers & prices, then you aren't. That's what this whole argument is about, of course.
They can say whatever they want on the flier, of course - reproduction certainly is legal in certain circumstances, regardless of whether its copyrighted or not.

Re:of course by Alsee · 2003-09-06 00:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

WWMLD? by Absurd+Being · 2003-09-06 00:56 · Score: 1

I wonder which side Matthew Lesko (the guy wearing the question mark suit on TV commercials) would be on? I assume pushing the bill, since his business is selling publically available data. And looking like the Riddler. I always think he's about to do something terrible to the Capital building when he's in front of it in a commercial.

--
Karma: Excellent^(-t/Tau), Tau=Wittiness/Trollishness

Very interesting article by bezuwork's+friend · 2003-09-06 01:38 · Score: 1

From the article:

Now ChoicePoint's database is no longer available to help U.S. authorities. An Associated Press report detailing the U.S. government's access to the data triggered a public outcry in Mexico and other Latin American countries from which Choic[e]Point had obtained citizens' private records.

Good for the Mexicans. And, while Choicepoint is, in my view, essentially pure evil (profiting off of private information), good for them as they cut of the U.S. government's access. Bad for the U.S. government - they should know better and give all people (citizens and non-citizens alike) the freedom from being tracked without cause. The U.S. government has no business having access to such data on Mexicans. But:

Lee said ChoicePoint's business is unaffected in seven of the 10 Latin American countries where it still deals in data. And the company still sells driver's license data on 6 million residents of Mexico City.

Hopefully, Latin America will continue to wake up:

Mexican authorities have launched an official probe into the data sales to ChoicePoint, as have those in Colombia, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. In Mexico, federal investigators issued an arrest warrant for a fugitive believed to have sold the federal election records to a Mexican data firm, which resold the database to ChoicePoint.

...

In Colombia, the attorney general's office said it is trying to determine who copied and sold the data. The country's human rights ombudsman, Eduardo Cifuentes, introduced a privacy bill in Colombia's congress this month that aims to prevent the "merchandising" of citizens' personal information.

...

Tellez, the Mexican data protection expert, said he believed Mexico's congress would propose privacy legislation when it returns in September. The ChoicePoint scandal broke during the deeply unpopular U.S. invasion of Iraq, which soured already mistrustful Mexicans on the motives of the United States.

Doesn't copyright exist? by nuggz · 2003-09-06 01:50 · Score: 1

Wouldn't a database be a collection?
Even if the individual work is not copyrighted, the collection can be.
Copyright law covers this, more laws are not required.

Defeatist Attitude by MSTCrow5429 · 2003-09-06 01:55 · Score: 1

"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."

With enough people with that attitude, I wouldn't be surprised. Ever write your legislator, or maybe vote?

--
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997

Remember the US Supreme Court's decision... by e6003 · 2003-09-06 01:55 · Score: 5, Informative

...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...

Re:of course by arkanes · 2003-09-06 02:54 · Score: 1

It seems blindingly obvious to me that numbering pages would fail the creativity test for copyright protection. Has this ever been seriously tested?

So what's the problem here? by drank · 2003-09-06 03:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I work for, and own stock in, a database publishing company. After reading the /. story, I thought I should start making plans for my retirement as Congress was about to shoveling cash into my grubby hands. But after reading the Yahoo article, I don't really see it happening. *sigh*

For those who are having trouble parsing the proposed legislation, consider the following scenario: You get the bright idea to publish a directory of computer consultancies in the Pacific North West, knowing that time-pressed IT geeks would love a fast way to find specialists with a particular skill. So you start a company, spend a year finding and calling individuals & other companies, asking how big they are, what services they offer, what types of projects they tackle, what certifications their staff has, etc.

Finally the big day arrives and you print your directory and mail it to 10000 Seattle-area IT workers. Two weeks later, you're web surfing and find nwcomputerservices.com. And it's got all your data! Same companies, same info, even some of the same mistakes! You're pissed - they've ripped you off. But when you talk to your lawyer, she tells you there's little you can do. It's not illegal for them to copy your data, as long as they didn't duplicate your published (and copyrighted) printed directory.

In practice, US directory publishers work around this situation via license agreements, existing law, etc. So while this law would probably be a good thing (similar laws exist in the EU and probably elsewhere), it's hard to see that it's going to massively transfer cash to directory owners, or make us all slaves to the big corporations, or whatever else michael was worrying about when he posted the article.

You're Not a Citizen, You're a Consumer by serutan · 2003-09-06 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

So just STFU and consume. That's the message corporate America and it's subsidiary, Congress, are sending you. Increased IP protection is one way to keep low-stakes players out of the game. Increasing the legal risk of publishing counteracts that the Internet has reduced the actual cost of publishing to practically zero. Patenting algorithms counteracts that small software houses can compete with big ones.

The idea is to keep a wall between the peasants and the nobles. If the peasants build ladders, make the wall higher. If they start digging tunnels, put in a moat. If trees overhang the wall, cut them down. And if the peasants ever figure out how to turn straw into gold and mint their own coins, you burn all their straw and cut off their hands.

First Hand Experience by NibbleAbit · 2003-09-06 03:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

You Insensitive Clod ... by Hal+The+Computer · 2003-09-06 04:08 · Score: 1

I don't elect my senators! ;-)

Yes, it's true .

--

int main(void){int x=01232;while(malloc(x));return x;}

Someone has to say it... by wirelessbuzzers · 2003-09-06 04:19 · Score: 1

All your database are belong to us.

--
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.

Tyler Durden is sitting here next to me.... by Quizo69 · 2003-09-06 05:12 · Score: 1

Of course, you have to be slightly crazy to see him....

Now who is going to get Project Mayhem underway to stop these bastards? Rubber band a few Senators perhaps?

--

Visceral Psyche Films

I'm surprised people are against this. by BitterOak · 2003-09-06 06:24 · Score: 1

Given that most Slashdot posters tend to be very pro-privacy, I'm very surprised that the majority here seem to be against this bill which looks like something to promote privacy.

Do you want companies to be able to copy and sell your kids' student records? Do you want your medical records to be traded among potential insurance companies? Do you want your income tax records bought and sold all over the place?

So, I'm confused. Why don't people think this bill is a good thing?

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?

Re:I'm surprised people are against this. by Paul+Bain · 2003-09-07 10:30 · Score: 1

Given that most Slashdot posters tend to be very pro-privacy, I'm very surprised that the majority here seem to be against this bill which looks like something to promote privacy.
[snip]
So, I'm confused. Why don't people think this bill is a good thing?

Perhaps this sentiment springs from the fact that most Slashdotters are also pro-piracy -- they hate to pay a reasonable amount for information or intellectual property (IP), even if such payment is the best means of ensuring the continued production (or availability) of the information or IP.
Another reason may be that most Slashdotters probably have not taken the time to read the bill carefully or to consider its implications in a calm state of mind. The majority of the anti-bill sentiments expressed hereon are of the "knee-jerk" variety.

--

A lawyer & digital forensics examiner. Also an expert on open source software (OSS).

Ask and ye shall recieve ... by bezuwork's+friend · 2003-09-06 06:46 · Score: 1

Thanks, perfect intro to the case we discussed in copyright class on Thursday.

Matthew Bender & Co., et al. v. West Publishing Co., decided at the 2nd Cir. in 1999 (Supreme Ct. denied cert.). This case was directly concerned with page references and West's claim of copyright over them. 2nd Circuit affirmed a rejection of this and the Supreme Ct., or scotus as some call them, declined to accept the appeal.

By way of explanation for those not in the legal field, page references are important because case citations in court pleadings generally use page references to the standard bound works, which just coincidentally are published by Westlaw. As cases are often long, covering many pages, it is very helpful to have cite references to the exact page of a given point.

Interestingly enough, I guess as a result of the above decision, I can get page references from cases downloaded from Lexis and such, but if I get the cases from Westlaw (West's online service), I don't have the page references. They don't put them in there. I've tried many times to see if there was an option to turn on or something, but cases on Westlaw just seem not to have the references to their hardbound volumes. As we discussed in class, West was likely fighting this tooth-and-nail to require all practitioners to have to buy hardcopies of their books so that they can get the specific page references.

Stupid. As a result, if I were the one paying for the database, I would likely lean towards Lexis as they include the page references.

The problem is... by Svartalf · 2003-09-06 06:51 · Score: 1

Much of what we call "data" IS in the Public Domain.

What it seems that they're asking for is "Copyright" protection for all data, no matter WHERE it came from.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

Slippery slope. by C10H14N2 · 2003-09-06 07:19 · Score: 1

If you came up with a database of millions of records and couldn't come up with a shred of documentation as to where, when and how you acquired the information, you most likely stole it.

I've used public records databases for twenty years some of which are now available through services like "KnowX." The various levels of government involved are only required to make certain information freely available, which can mean having a printout in a particular office. Most do not have web access from the source. Even if they did, individually accessing every city, county and state through dozens of interfaces would not be useful.

Until the federal government provides an overarching public records access system down to the city level, which is not going to happen, there will be a demand for just such commercial products. Compiling such database collections of national scope is certainly valuable, very expensive and should be protected.

This notion of public information magically becoming private is about as likely as if your produced "a list of presidents of the United States" with the effect that somehow George Bush would no longer be able to utter his own name.

I think the big point here is... by kakur · 2003-09-06 12:10 · Score: 1

Is that databases are most often not creative works but compilations of data that other people own. If someone farms your email address or phone number from some source? Anyone else can get it from the same or different sources, and ultimately its your personal information, not theirs. I think one should be afraid that later there will be legislation, or even the twisted interpretation of this legislation, that would say the data itself was owned by the database compiler, allowing people to sue you for having a telephone number they farmed. Yes this is an extreme example, but we have seen equally stupid examples that became reality. If our elected lawmakers wanted to help us they would stop companies from selling their databases, make it so that every company has to work for their data, but I live in California so I concede the point.

Enlighten me... by Tristan+Tzara · 2003-09-06 12:19 · Score: 1

At what point does intelligent processing of data produce a copyrightable work, under current law? On the far end you have a mere random compilation of, say, books or book titles from Gutenberg.net, in the middle you have a database of words in Gutenberg's docs, sorted by statistical frequency, and finally you have a student paper on the use of a given word in Shakespeare's writings. Speaking from experience, a suitable paper often contains nothing more than a seemingly "intelligent" re-presentation of totally uninteresting data.

So what is a database? May we also call it an intelligent representation of data? If some boundary is to be drawn in copyright, "intelligence" will need to be measured. As an artistic statement, I might be inclined to list all the words to Hamlet in scrambled order. If accompanied by a suitable justification (that's all modern art is these days), could I say it's more than a dumb "collection"? Or what about intelligently linked databases, such as gnoosic.com?

For a moment, recall the ingenious attempts at casting DeCSS code as ordinary speech. Well, could the same not be done with any other work? Should a paper describing the countless associations contained in gnoosic be any more copyrightable than the database itself? If gnoosic added scripted commentary of associations (based on some theory or other), would it be more than a database? If not, what about a paper adding theoretical commentary to the clearly intelligent associations present?

Data is data is data is Dada.

Another Threat to Democracy... by Jerry · 2003-09-06 14:50 · Score: 1

Here's how: I want to change some electrical wiring in my house. I can do it myself but I must follow the electrical code as passed by the Nebraska Legislature. So, I go to the library to look up what code the Laws of the State of Nebraska say I must follow when wiring my home. Then is when I find out that the State Laws (i.e., the electrical code) are COPYRIGHTED by a special interest group and to get a copy of the law, so that I can remain legal, I must pay them $600!!! These are the same special interests that lobbied the State Senators to get provisions into the code that gave their members special priviledge$ that don't require $pecial talent$.

The corporations, with the help of blind, stupid or greed politicans, have stolen the American public blind.

--

Running with Linux for over 20 years!

Re:of course by Assembler · 2003-09-06 16:22 · Score: 1

This service (education) could be provided by the government..

Re:CleanMoney by AJWM · 2003-09-07 06:57 · Score: 1

why don't we finance elections with public money?

The trick is getting there from here in the current system. The Demopublicans and Republicrats would be thrilled at the prospect of eliminating all funding to those pesky vote-siphoning third parties by placing requirements, which happen to exclude everyone but themselves, on getting that public funding.

Speaking of election reform -- and this isn't likely to happen either -- I'd love to see "truth in advertising" laws applied to campaign ads.

--
-- Alastair

Re:Helpless. by OrderOfSemprini · 2003-09-08 01:07 · Score: 1

"the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddle no more and longs eagerly for just two things -- bread and circuses." Juvenal

Re:Helpless. by HBI · 2003-09-08 03:55 · Score: 1

Can always trust you to remember the good Roman quotes. ;-)

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Re:Helpless. by OrderOfSemprini · 2003-09-08 04:16 · Score: 1

heh, and if I cant remember them I can always steal them from an uncopyrighted database!!

Slashdot Mirror

Congress Again Considering Database Protection Bill

97 of 128 comments (clear)