Congressional Committee Approves Database Bill

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."

Comments

Notice that law isn't exempt

[corebreech]

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.)

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[Anonymous Coward]

"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".

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[MrLint]

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.

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[corebreech]

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?

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[drakaan]

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.

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[netwiz]

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.

Stop it?

[Master Bait]

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!"

Protects work not data

[stoolpigeon]

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.

Re:Protects work not data

[Razor Blades are Not]

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.

Ok, so let's do it!

[Bad Boy Marty]

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!

Living in a fact free world

[glinden]

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.

So...

[Spytap]

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...

When is a copy not a copy?

[El]

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?

Amazon's Opposition?

[FJCsar]

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)?

Re:Already the case...

[pangian]

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.

RMS was right!?

[General Newcomb]

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.

Re:1984

[dasmegabyte]

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.

YES!!!! Thank you, Congress!

[pla]

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.