Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congressional Committee Approves Database Bill

Posted by michael on from the here-comes-another-one dept.

thisissilly writes "Ready for another set of restrictions to so-called 'intellectual property'? The House Judiciary committee approved a bill to extend copyright-like protection to databases, despite opposition by AT&T, Amazon, Yahoo, and Google, among others. Currently mere compilations of facts, such as phone books, are not copyrightable. This would change that. Coverage from Cnet, Internetnews. No word on a Senate version. Let's stop this one before it grows."

32 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. Notice that law isn't exempt by corebreech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I only bring this up because I'm searching for a reason why they would do this, and I believe that lawyers and politicians feel very threatened by the public having cheap and ready access to the law.

    My expectation is that once this law goes into effect, you'll see a number of states remove whatever databases they have that deal with law and assign those rights to a private company, which will be able to charge exhorbitant fees for access, and go after anyone who does the same on the basis that they copied their work, even if the material was independently compiled because there is no easy way to tell a copy of a copy from a copy of an original.

    Anyone trying to create their own law database would find themselves in court, and because of the expense, they'd give up before ever going to trial.

    This will be a win for Lexis I think.

    (and yes, I *like* my tin-foil hat.)

    --
    Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
    1. Re:Notice that law isn't exempt by Lil'wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hasn't that already happened. There have been several instances where local town councils "Adopt" new building codes. To save time and effort they adopt a standard code prodcued elsewhere. Builders then find themselved in the position of having to "Pay " to access the codes and regulations that they must follow!

      --

      Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another

    2. Re:Notice that law isn't exempt by silentbozo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would the burden of proof not be on the owner of the database who says their material was stolen?

      It would be. However, the entrenched competitor would have the deep pockets to put up a lot of legal trouble for the upstart... who would likely not have that kind of money. It's copyright law based on the golden rule - he who has the gold, rules. For example, Wikipedia would get 100 years of protection for any facts that it had - but on the other hand, would suddenly become a target for anyone with money in their pockets, and a vested interest in keeping Wikipedia out of their market.

      Also, remember. Copyright extends protection for 100 years. The most trivial of facts, once compiled, would be out of the reach of everyone (think Almanacs - copy anything out of one, and you could find yourself on the receiving end of a lawsuit.)

    3. Re:Notice that law isn't exempt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Don't all laws by definition have to be publicly published?"

      You'd think so, but they're not. You have to pay to see lots of them.

      That's why I laugh whenever anyone coughs up "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

    4. Re:Notice that law isn't exempt by MrLint · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was going to moderate this topic but there is something you guys need to know. A while ago there was a lawsuit by some group that proposes building safety standards and such and lobbies state and local govt to institute them into law. This group claimed it was still copyright after they lobbied to get it enacted to law.

      Also currently (it appears) that laws are not copyrightable. Why this is trying to be pused thru is beyond me. To make a quick buck for govt? to prevent unfettered access? To use copyright law to prevent the publication of laws for 'national security'? Gives me the willies.

    5. Re:Notice that law isn't exempt by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the case I'm thinking of there was no database in question. The law itself was considered the propriatary work of a private company and the posting of the law on a website, from printed sources, to be a copyright violation.

      As for overturning local law it's certainly possible. Although I will point out that my own city a few years ago spent thirteen million dollars of taxpayer money to defend (unsuccessfully) an unconstitutional law.

      You have to be willing to go up against that.

      KFG

    6. Re:Notice that law isn't exempt by albeit+unknown · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The National Electrical Code is copyrighted by the National Fire Protection Association ($65 from Amazon). In turn, this work is referenced as The Law by local governments. So you have to pay to see the law.

    7. Re:Notice that law isn't exempt by corebreech · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You say:

      If those of us who have concerns about the direction of so-called intellectual property laws don't take the time to actually read and understand those laws...

      and then say:

      So.... Why protect databases made by educational institutions? I dunno.

      So you want to criticize me for not reading and understanding the law here in one breath, and in the next you gladly confess your own ignorance of this very same law.

      That's beautiful.

      Your lame assertions notwithstanding, I read the legislation. I paid particular attention to two features, first, the fact that law is not excluded, even though something like a domain registry is, and second, that the exclusion concerning government-sourced data has a loophole the size of Wyoming.

      Moreover, it doesn't say that only educational institutions can copyright this stuff. Educational institutions are included, but the wording clearly indicates that anyone can obtain the copyright in the course of engaging in "education."

      As would be the case for a private firm selling access to the law. They would be engaging in education.

      Indeed, as it is written, they would have a virtual monopoly on education in this particular subject matter.

      See?

      --
      Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
    8. Re:Notice that law isn't exempt by drakaan · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The thing is, "databases" like GrokLaw are the ones that don't need this protection. Why make a public database public if you don't want people to use the data? It makes no sense. This bill talks about protections to make sure that people keep on creating new public databases, and that keeps causing my neurons to short-circuit.

      Private databases aren't shared, so they don't need it. Public databases *are* shared, so (as far as I can tell) they don't need it, or shouldn't be shared. There has to be some reason that this bill is getting pushed forward, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is...

      In the existing framework, I find music and artistic things are sensible to apply copyright to, as are proprietary things of various types. Data made publicly available today is immediately trivial to collect, and those who make data available *know* that. Why else are there subscription-based search sites? This bill is pointless, unless it's somehow malicious.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    9. Re:Notice that law isn't exempt by kilgortrout · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll give you a reason. It's a "fetch" bill, i.e. a terrible piece of legislation that some powerful and monied interests don't want. It's purpose is to encourage campaign contributions from those interests in exchange for vote against the bill. Hey, it's election time; gotta fill those coffers somehow.

    10. Re:Notice that law isn't exempt by netwiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      you can't. and since the SCOTUS can't line-item an act, the whole thing gets pitched, and the Legislative branch gets to start over.

      Congress can't legislate it's way out of judicial review.

  2. Stop it? by Master+Bait · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Let's stop this one before it grows.

    Surely you jest. Remember what the guy said to Deckard in Blade Runner, "If you're not corporate, you're little people!"

    --
    "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
    --Tom Schulman
  3. Protects work not data by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looking at the bill- it seems to me that it protects the actual collection effort not the data itself. If someone else wants to go out and collect the same information they can- they just can't steal your collection. I guess I'm missing why this is so bad.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Protects work not data by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because it's not a work of literary merit.
      There are already laws governing direct theft (of information or anything else).

      Shoehorning this law into copyright blurs the whole purpose of copyright even more than it currently is.

      Copyright is about making copies of works that (judging by whatever standard) have some artistic merit. Protecting the author of an original work against people who would copy his work (or make a derivative thereof) and not give due credit.

      The idea that databases of readily available, pure facts are of artistic merit is insulting to the real artists whose works will eventually (we hope) enter the public domain and enrich our society as a whole.

      If they want a law to protect databases from theft, they already have "trade secrets" and so on.

      But that's not the issue. These databases are publicly available. The companies involved aren't protecting an artistic work, or a trade secret. They want to be able to enforce rigid restrictions on otherwise public knowledge, simply because they aggregated it and published it first.

  4. Ok, so let's do it! by Bad+Boy+Marty · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I say we should each start a database of whatever "facts" we have available to us (that aren't already copyrighted, of course), and assign the copyrights to FSF or EFF for open distribution!

    --
    RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
  5. How long till... by mikeophile · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Patent database is copyrighted?

  6. Living in a fact free world by glinden · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A broad definition of "database"
    • (5) DATABASE
      (A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraph (B), the term `database' means a collection of a large number of discrete items of information produced for the purpose of bringing such discrete items of information together in one place or through one source so that persons may access them.
    combined with their definition of a prohibited action (making "available in commerce to others a quantitatively substantial part of the information in a database" is prohibited without consent) would seem to make it possible to sue for almost any use of any information without consent. At least, any information that can be decomposed into a small number of parts in some way or another.

    I wonder if we'll see SCO-like attempts to quickly produce as many databases of as many facts as possible. Anyone using any facts whatsoever could be extorted for license fees or subject to lawsuits by rabid hordes of attorneys.
    1. Re:Living in a fact free world by Milo+Fungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if we'll see SCO-like attempts to quickly produce as many databases of as many facts as possible. Anyone using any facts whatsoever could be extorted for license fees or subject to lawsuits by rabid hordes of attorneys.

      The bill is for copyright-like protections, not patent-like protections. The scenario you described above is more like a patented database situation - where the facts are protected regardless of their use (much as patents apply to alternate implementations of the same idea). Copyrights protect the "finished product" as it were, and not the "internals." In other words, you wouldn't be in violation by using facts from a database - only by making unlicensed copies of the original database.

      But this underscores a serious problem with modern notions of "intellectual property." As MarkusQ said earlier today:

      "(Our second big loss has been the "IP" fudge, which is blurring the distinctions between patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, competative advantages, wishful thinking, bull*, and marketing babble into one vague pile of lawyer poo)."

      So what do we DO about all of this? I attended a lecture given by Lawrence Lessig at my university's law school last fall. He seemed rather pessimistic about the prospects of legal reform - going about making changes from within the system (mainly due to his defeat in Elred Vs. Ashcroft). He spoke quite a bit about his work on the Creative Commons, and his views on the "Some Rights Reserved" middle ground. I think he's right, for the time being. The system is failing in many ways to serve the good of the people. Contributing to a copyleft commons is an important way to stand up for freedom of information, whether your contribution is sotware, music, the Creative Commons Logo rendered in SVG, ad infinitum.

      I was startled by one point that he made, mainly because I had recently been thinking along the same lines. My version is here. The point is that the trend of increased scope an enforcement of intellectual property has the potential to create a new feudal system based on the perpetual ownership of information and ideas. The old European feudal system was based on perpetual ownership of land. The implications of such a system for those who are left out of the ownership are easy to see, and are well-documented in the pages of history. There is a reason those years are known as "The Dark Ages."

  7. So... by Spytap · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So if Information and conglomeration are now copyrightable as intellectual property, can I copyright my DNA and fingerprints and sue anyone who tries to get a sample of either for copyright infringement and illegal tampering of my own personal database?
    Considering that I can fully claim myself as owner/manager of said conglomeration of information (being that I'm over 18), I think I can classify myself as a database, and all the information therein...

  8. When is a copy not a copy? by El · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I make a copy of a 1,000,000 entry database, then change one of the entries, is it still infringing? How does one distinguish a list of facts from another list of facts compiled independently? Should I be rushing out to apply for a copyright on my list of the capitals of the 50 states? If I create a database with all the elements in it, can I sue anybody who publishes a periodic table?

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  9. Examples: TV listsings, Sports results by bartash · · Score: 2, Interesting

    TV lisstings are a sort of DB no? So you cna't copy those.

    Sports statistics? Nope, don't try copying those either.

    --
    Read Epic the first RPG novel.
  10. I'm filing for copyright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ..on my name and address, thereby preventing the inclusion of my personal details in a data retrieval system. You may say that I can't do this, but I am changing my name and the name of my house to something a little more creative and thus subject to copyright protection. The government and anybody else who wants to keep me "on file" will be provided with bank details for royalty collection purposes.

  11. One more thing to write your congresspeople about. by stealth.c · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The EFF might have a model letter up soon. I really think writing to your representatives is key. There is still a vestige of citizens' power left if enough of us do this. If we don't use what's left of that power NOW, we might never have it again.

  12. Amazon's Opposition? by FJCsar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's kind of interesting that Amazon is among the companies that are opposing this bill. How many programs currently take data from their database and funnel it for alternate uses (i.e. Readerware)?

  13. Re:Already the case... by pangian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Laws and documents produced by the United States Federal Government are considered in the public domain, however "many [U.S.] state government documents, and most documents from foreign governments, are protected by copyright."

    So technically some state and local governments can charge you for laws right now.

  14. RMS was right!? by General+Newcomb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just watched Revolution OS last night. In the film , Richard Stallman mentions this very threat. I didn't believe it could be done. It seemed too outlandish, but, it looks like it may become a reality.

  15. Re:1984 by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, they're trying to preserve the right to make money maintaining accurate databases of information. The idea here is that, while information is free, the collection of it is something which takes a lot of time and resources, and that should be protected. Otherwise, people have less incentive to open their databases to the public and less incentive to maintain good information -- or to digitize materials that are currently offline.

    I'm not saying this is a great law, or anything. But I've worked for a number of organizations who resisted putting their best data onto the web, because it was so hard to prevent people from stealing it and reselling it to the public AND there was no legal mechanism to prevent it. To assemble paper and put it into a database takes money. Why shouldn't companies want to protect their investments?

    After all, nothing stops you from making the same investment and opening it to the public (freedb, anyone?). This just stops you from riding the coattails of somebody else's hard work without their permission.

    --
    Hey freaks: now you're ju
  16. YES!!!! Thank you, Congress! by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think people have missed a possible use of this that benefits the public, and the very reason why companies like AT&T oppose this bill...

    This would make it legal to copyright collections of personal data. Copyright protections also extend to derivative works of existing copyrighted material (which in this case means subsets and/or the addition of other information).

    How does this benefit the average Joe? Simple. Take every bit of personal information you can think of, stick it into a database, and file for a copyright on it. Poof, you've just made every company out there trying to gather data on you guilty of a copyright violation for which you can sue them (and theoretically win, if the courts don't consider this as yet another law that only benefits corporations). And, as a bonus, the courts take copyright violations for monetary gain FAR more seriously than just coincidental violations, so companies selling your (copyrighted) personal information between each other commit an even more serious offense.

    Sweet. Consider this my notification to the world that I have just compiled such a collection, and consider it copyrighted.

  17. Take a deep breath by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let me preface this by stating that I am no lawyer; nor am I a post-graduate law student. What I'm offering is merely the interpretation that I took away from reading the Act legislation.

    For those with tin-foil or aluminium-foil hats, you can take them off for this one. As far as I was able to figure out, government, education, and non-profit databases are not covered under this Act.

    The Act does, however, appear to cover IP tables and databases of any kind involving activity by IP address... meaning that the RIAA and MPAA cannot simply grab an activity log organized by IP address, or an IP address database organized by user/name, without first obtaining written permission by the ISP or a subpeona from a court. (I am unsure if this actually changes much, if anything, if it's redundant, or if it's just putting specific coverage under Federal law.)

    For the most part, it looks like this law applies to corporate databases and little to nothing else. Freedom of the press, the Act providing for government transparency (I cannot recall the name of the Act at this time), and previous communication laws still apply. Further, it seems to me that the Act sets up coverage for scholarly or educational access to databases within a certain, unspecified, level; it leaves the determination of that level to the courts.

    I haven't read any of the previous communication acts, but it looks to me that the only negative side-effect of this Act would be regional (or national) monopolies on phonebooks. Since, at the places I've lived, at least, phonebooks tend to be distributed without charge to the individual, it's only a matter of information accuracy and phonebook advertisements.

    I suggest that EVERYONE read the Act for themselves, but it doesn't seem to me like it's something to go grey over or spike aluminum foil manufacturers stock prices.

    ~UP

    --
    Eat the Path.
  18. RIAA Radar & Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Since the RIAA Radar www.magnetbox.com uses the Amazon database, could they technically be sued for use of the database and forced to close down? Probably a far out conspiracy theory, but I'm interested if this might have been a potential cause behind the creation of the law. But then again, I didn't RTFA, so I could be wrong. It wouldn't be too hard for the RIAA to pressure Amazon into copyrighting their database, and suing the RIAA Radar as they mostly carry RIAA Affiliated music.

  19. The SCO Connection by neongenesis · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If I read this correctly...

    A collection of previously un-copyrightable associations between names and some data is now a copyrightable item.

    So If SCO can claim the original ownership due to first "collection" of say
    #define EPERM 1
    #define ENOENT 2
    and so on, then SCO suddenly can find that errno.h is a copyright violation of System-V code in Linux, where there was none before. It is not the file "errno.h"; Linus can state under oath that his is an independant creation. But now the Database itself contained in the file is copyrighted... Just what Darl is trying to claim.

    I don't think that this needs the tinfoil hat. This is way too subtle for Darl.

  20. Prior Art? by bigattichouse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, this means we should go around modeling anything and everything now, before the law passes.. so we can have prior art?

    --
    meh