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

[Short Circuit]

At least the Wayback machine will have copies from before copyright notices were added to the page... :)

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[Lil'wombat]

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!

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[silentbozo]

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.)

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[ydnar]

Here is an example law, in this case building codes, being proprietary. More info here.

y

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

[zulux]

It looks like standard-codes adopted by governemt can be copied due to a recent court ruling: more info

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[shystershep]

Two comments:
First, in one sense this happened long ago (and makes this law even more stupid). LexisNexis and Westlaw, the two monster legal database companies, had a big lawsuit when they first started moving online because one (Lexis, I think) was copying the other's printed cases to build their online database. The way it came down, if I remember correctly, is that the material itself (e.g., the court's opinion) cannot be copyrighted, but the way it is presented can (such as the numbering system).

Second, I don't think this will have any effect on public access to law. You may not realize it, but everyone of you almost definitely has access to a public law library -- either at the county courthouse, a local university, whatever (no guarantees as to its quality, but its there if you look). Even more relevant, though, is that most court opinions and state laws are available free online from your state goverment (try your state supreme court and legislature webpages), and the trend has been for more and more of this to be published on the web at the same time LexisNexis and Westlaw have grown. The reasons that people use the pay services are that you can find all of the information in one place, and they have sophisticated search tools to find what you are looking for. Local laws/ordinances are harder to find, but they should be available at that law library I mentioned.

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[ichimunki]

If any of you ever bothered to RTFL(egislation), you'd have found this:

SEC. 5. EXCLUSIONS.

(a) GOVERNMENT INFORMATION-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), protection under this Act shall not extend to--

(A) a database generated, gathered, organized, or maintained by a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, or by an employee or agent of such an entity, acting within the scope of such employment or agency; or

(B) a database generated, gathered, or maintained by an entity pursuant to and to the extent required by a Federal statute or regulation requiring such a database.

I leave it up to the reader to determine to what extent this protects various statute databases and other privately created systems housing purely public domain governmental data.

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

[Short Circuit]

definately. Look at 6.b.1...it declares that..

(b) PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW-

(1) LAWS REGULATING CONDUCT THAT IS SUBJECT OF THE ACT- On or after the effective date of this Act, no State statute, rule, regulation, or common law doctrine that prohibits or otherwise regulates conduct that is the subject of this Act shall be effective.

Dear God...look at 7.c.2, 7.c.2.b, 7.c.2.g.

And 7.d:

(d) IMPOUNDMENT- At any time while an action under this section is pending, including an action seeking to enjoin a violation, the court may order the impounding, on such terms as it deems reasonable, of all copies of contents of a database made available in commerce or attempted to be made available in commerce potentially in violation of section 3, and of all masters, tapes, disks, diskettes, or other articles by means of which such copies may be reproduced. The court may, as part of a final judgment or decree finding a violation or attempted violation of section 3, order the remedial modification or destruction of all copies of contents of a database made available in commerce or attempted to be made available in commerce in violation of section 3, and of all masters, tapes, disks, diskettes, or other articles by means of which such copies may be reproduced.

IANAL, but That looks like it means they can impound anything that could possibly have a copy of the said material on it. Meaning, every computer, floppy and tape in a company.

And here's the punchline: (I'll let you guys play with it. I've got to go home.)

SEC. 10. NONSEVERABILITY.

(a) IN GENERAL- If the Supreme Court of the United States holds that the provisions of section 3, relating to prohibition of misappropriation of databases, are invalid under Article I of, or the First Amendment to, the Constitution of the United States, then this Act is repealed, effective as of the date of the Supreme Court decision.

(b) TERMINATION- Subsection (a) shall cease to be effective at the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[kfg]

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

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[corebreech]

I see you chose not to include the very next paragraph:

(2) EXCEPTION- Nothing in this section shall preclude protection under this Act for a database gathered, organized, or maintained by an employee or agent of an entity described in paragraph (1) that is acting outside the scope of such employment or agency, or by a Federal, State, or local educational institution, or its employees or agents, in the course of engaging in education, research, or scholarship.

Why protect activities related to education, research, or scholarship?

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[albeit unknown]

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.

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[ryanjensen]

Note that the law does not protect the individual bits of data in the database, just a "quantitatively substantial part of the information" and only if:

1. the database was generated, gathered, or maintained through a substantial expenditure of financial resources or time;
2. the unauthorized making available in commerce occurs in a time sensitive manner and inflicts injury on the database or a product or service offering access to multiple databases; AND
3. the ability of other parties to free ride on the efforts of the plaintiff would so reduce the incentive to produce the product or service that its existence or quality would be substantially threatened.

Also, a database is defined as "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" ... not each item idividually.

Finally, copying an entry out of an encyclopedia or almanac and passing it off as your own is plagiarism, and should be illegal in my opinion (if it isn't already).

[All italics mine.]

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[orthogonal]

Not anymore.

The US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal (warning: pdf) (denied a petition for a writ of certiorari) of the US 5th Circuit's en banc ruling in SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE V. VEECK, PETER that re-decided the 5th Circuit's previous panel decision that affirmed the District Courts's summary judgment in favor of defendant Southern Building Code Congress International Inc, reversing the District Court and remanding the case to it for dismissal of SBCCI's claims.

Or to be less concise:

A three-judge panel, with one judge dissenting, of the 5th Circuit initially found that Souther Building Code Congress International Inc. retained copyright to its codes even though those codes were incorporated by reference in the law of, among other places, two Texas towns, Anna and Savoy. The majority's decison laregly rested on findings of other Circuit Courts, and explcitly said that "We decline to create a circuit split by reaching the opposite conclusion today." The majority's opinion held that the Supreme Court's finding in Banks v. Manchester didn't apply to the controversy at hand.

Then one of the judges of the 5th Circuit asked that the all the judges in the 5th Circuit decide the case -- this is called the circuit sitting en banc -- and a majority of the 5th Circuits judges agreed to hear the case en banc.

The decision of the majority (9-6, with the Chief Judge dissenting) of the entire 5th Cirucit took a diferent view of Banks v. Manchester, and so reversed the Distruct's Court's summary judgment in favor of SBCCI's claim that Veeck had violated SBCCI"s copyright to the building codes at issue, by posting them on his web site.

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

[orthogonal]

Second, I don't think this will have any effect on public access to law.

Court decisions and statute law are public domain, by long established precedent reaching back to the US Supreme Court's findings in Wheaton v.
Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834) and Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.Ct. 36 (1888). Banks relied upon a decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 6 N.E. 559 (1886), which held that "justice requires that all should have free access to" both court decisions and statute law.

Furthermore, the 1976 Copyright Act (at 17 U.S.C. 105) specifically denies copyright protection to federal statutes and regulation; the state basis of Banks implies that state and local laws are also not copyrightable, and this is upheld in Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International Inc., No. 99-40632.

Indeed, as the Veeck decision reminds, "Justice Harlan, writing for the Sixth Circuit [in Howell v. Miller, 91 F. 129, 137 (6th Cir. 1898)]: 'any person desiring to publish the statutes of a state may use any copy of such statutes to be found in any printed book . . .'" (emphasis mine).

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

[kilgortrout]

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.

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.

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[Ironica]

Note that the law does not protect the individual bits of data in the database, just a "quantitatively substantial part of the information" and only if...

It seems like one of the possible goals of this legislation, from what you've repeated here, might be another way to prosecute spammers. If they buy a database of email addresses, they no longer have the right to distribute that database.

However, there are a lot of other cases where this could have a seriously chilling effect. For example, there's the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, which is served up on the web by the University of Michigan (though they don't compile the data). The most recent year's data is never available on the web, only prior years... you have to pay about $300 for a CD-ROM to get the last go-round. Still, if that database is copyrighted, and I use it to generate some statistics for something someone doesn't like (such as finding that there's a negative correlation between education and going to church), now there's a mechanism to quash my findings. If the compilation of the data is protected under copyright, then derivative works are also under the purview of the copyright holder, and statistics derived from a compilation of data would probably be derivative works.

This seems like it would be mostly used by companies that sell marketing information, and stuff like GIS data. I guess currently it's perfectly legal for me to buy some data from ESRI and then export it to CSV and send copies to all my friends, but this law would prevent that.

Then the question is, should that be legal? Maybe it shouldn't, but it's hard to see how you could really implement a law to protect it without it being wide open for abuse.

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[Ironica]

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.

I think you've got the poster completely backwards. It's not the Groklaw would be protected, but that for-profit law indexes would prosecute sites like Groklaw under this law. It doesn't matter if they're infringing or not... the reason facts are not currently subject to copyright is that it's darn hard to tell whether someone copied them or went out and got the info themselves.

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.

What about proprietary, for-sale databases? They are neither private nor public. Instead, they are a saleable item. If I want shapefiles of all US ZIP codes to drop into GIS, chances are I'll have to pay for them. But that's just because I don't know someone who already has the data and can give it to me.

You seem to be stuck on the notion that databases are either used only internally or are completely public and free. Lexis-Nexis would beg to differ.

Re:Notice that law isn't exempt

[Reziac]

Donning my tinfoil hat, I had these thoughts:

Here is a simple database, containing information which I have gathered:

1+0=1
1+1=2
1+2=3
1+3=4
(etc.)

I shall print this database in a book, thus garnering copyright. I shall make this database available on a subscription basis only, for one billion dollars per user. NOW try and teach your kids basic arithmetic, BWAHAHAHAHA!!

Extreme example, but goes to support what you're getting at: once distribution (copying) of FACTS can be restricted, the only possible end result is widespread ignorance. And ignorant people are easy to exploit and control.

This is pretty much the technique used by churches during the late middle ages, once the rising middle class started getting "uppity". In some areas it was unlawful for a peasant to learn to read, because such knowledge was restricted to the use of the church.

So what happens when laws restricting copying of compendiums of facts (the content of databases) collides with public education? ISTM persons bent on an agenda could pull facts out of the meme pool by compiling, copyrighting, and restricting their public accessability.

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

[TechnologyX]

There's a big difference to politicians between "what it says" and "how we can warp it". Patriot Act, harmless on paper, bad in effect, DMCA same thing

Re:Protects work not data

[Polybius]

So do I have to cite my source every time I look up a phone # and write it down?!

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.

Re:Protects work not data

[zurab]

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.

Not only can they take your most private information and sell it to anyone that will pay for it, now they can copyright your data too.

I hereby declare that all my personal information is a "compilation database" about me and is copyright by myself alone; anyone using this information without my express written consent will be labeled as a "thief" stealing my intellectual property and will be sued for copyright infringement.

The world has gone nuts!

Re:Protects work not data

[hchaos]

There's a big difference to politicians between "what it says" and "how we can warp it". Patriot Act, harmless on paper, bad in effect, DMCA same thing

Since when are the Patriot Act and DMCA harmless on paper? They have been used exactly as they were written, and anyone who is surprised by this should have paid more attention to how they were written.

On the other hand, here we have a bill that explicitly limits how it can be applied. As long as that clause doesn't get removed in negotiations, it's pretty iron-clad.

Re:Protects work not data

[zurab]

The definition of database is so vague, it can be almost anything. Did you read the bill?

what are they smokin?

[jhagler]

What's up with the Judiciary committees? The Senate one just passed a bill (S1177) which prohibits the sale of cigars via mail-order.

There's a lot of internet cigar shops stressing about that one.

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!

How long till...

[mikeophile]

The Patent database is copyrighted?

Oh, I don't know...

[mengel]

Rather than stop it let's get in on the ground floor -- we'll start a company, (or better yet buy up an existing one that's going out of business) build a big database of names, snail-mail addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers; copyright the database and then we can sue all kinds of folks:

• Phone companies
• Online businesses
• spammers
• The IRS

for having illegally copied versions and/or deriviative works of our database.

We'll sell lots of stock at inflated prices, then sell it all just before we lose the court cases.

I mean, if it worked for SCO...

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.

Re:Living in a fact free world

[Milo Fungus]

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."

Great, just what we need...

[JessLeah]

...ANOTHER sort of "Intellectual(R) Property(TM)". This is getting ridiculous. I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever reach a point where Joe Beer and his wife Martha will wake up, take their head out of their Bibles and their AOL chat rooms, and start to give a damn about any of this corporate power grabbing...

Re:Great, just what we need...

[Dorf on Perl]

Unfortunately, my good friends Joe & Martha Beer first have to learn about said corporate power grabbing through the media outlets owned by

Transmission stopped

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...

Re:So...

[beattie]

Better yet, copyright your body and, if you have blue eyes, sue anyone else with blue eyes for copyright infringement.

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?

Profit!

[SHEENmaster]

I just sent in a copyright request for all the terms associated with Geometry. Now that heretical balsphemy will all fund my pocket, and be subject to my rule!

Pi is exactly 3! It'll be illegal for you to say otherwise.

ACM Policy Position

[Squeamish Ossifrage]

The ACM is currently surveying its members on whether or not to oppose this and similar measures. If you're a member, you've probably already gotten e-mail. Be sure to follow up on it if this issue is important to you!

The current policy committee positions are viewable on the ACM web site.

Um, no.

[c0dedude]

This is the equivilant, IMHO, of passing bills making abortion illegal. Phone books and compilations are not copyrightable, says the Supreme Court. Feist v. Rural Telecom. Congress cannot change this and prescient would take priority here, the law would be immediatly challenged and overturned if it directly contradicts Feist. IANAL, but this is my read on it.

Re:Um, no.

[hchaos]

This is the equivilant, IMHO, of passing bills making abortion illegal. Phone books and compilations are not copyrightable, says the Supreme Court. Feist v. Rural Telecom. Congress cannot change this and prescient would take priority here, the law would be immediatly challenged and overturned if it directly contradicts Feist. IANAL, but this is my read on it.

This would be true if the case were decided solely on the basis of Constitutionality, but it wasn't. If you read the decision, you will see that the Supreme Court rules that the white pages do not meet the statutory requirements for copyright, and Congress can change a statute at any time, which invalidates all court decisions based on that statute.

Now, because the decision did have a Constitutional component, the court may invalidate this potential law, but it is by no means certain.

Hold on there...

[DVDAshot]

I call shenannigans on this whole idea. I have already copyrighted the entire alphabet to include the formation of letters in a certain sequence to create what I call "words (c)." Therefore any database would violate my standing copyright. Use of any of the letters without express written consent is strictly prohibited.

Take action before, not after...

[Dave21212]

Um, this bill has been on the table for quite a while now. (see also)

The time for action is when these bills are on the table. Granted, if AT&T can't budge the rats that passed this abhoration, what chance do you have... Write (hand written) letters to your representatives and vote your conscience this November !

Examples: TV listsings, Sports results

[bartash]

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

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

actually, factual compilations are (c)able

[nudicle]

Currently mere compilations of facts, such as phone books, are not copyrightable.

That's not true. The Supreme Court decision that all this stuff comes from is known as Feist. Feist ruled, basically, that the white pages is not copyrightable because there was absolutely no creativity or originality in listing : last name, first name, address, phone number.

If, however, you took a bunch of mere facts and arranged them in an innovative and creative way you very well might be able to get copyright protection for the compilation. the white pates isn't copytightable, but some other collections of mere facts certainly are. The copyright would cover the compilation, however, and not the facts themselves.

Re:actually, factual compilations are (c)able

[nudicle]

Ok, IANAL. I am a second year law student at the university of virginia and before I went back to school I was a unix systems programmer.

That being said, I think you are correct. The facts in the the actual tuples would not be copyrightable. One of the Big Deals in copyright jurisprudence is that facts themselves are not copytightable and neither are ideas. What is copyrightable is expression (your particular expression of ideas or facts rather than those ideas or facts themselves).

So, the data in the tuples, if we're talking about just facts, are not copyrightable. If you generated a report from the database it might be copyrightable if its "selection, coordination, and arrangement" were sufficiently creative. "sufficiently creative" is a blurry concept, I know. Here is a summary of Feist's holding, from findlaw.com:

Rural's white pages are not entitled to copyright, and therefore Feist's use of them does not constitute infringement. Pp. 344-364.

(a) Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original, and thus are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves. This fact/expression dichotomy severely limits the scope of protection in fact-based works. Pp. 344-351.

(b) The Copyright Act of 1976 and its predecessor, the Copyright Act of 1909, leave no doubt that originality is the touchstone of copyright protection in directories and other fact-based works. The 1976 Act explains that copyright extends to "original works of authorship," 17 U.S.C. 102(a), and that there can be no copyright in facts, 102(b). [499 U.S. 340, 341] A compilation is not copyrightable per se, but is copyrightable only if its facts have been "selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 101 (emphasis added). Thus, the statute envisions that some ways of selecting, coordinating, and arranging data are not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection. Even a compilation that is copyrightable receives only limited protection, for the copyright does not extend to facts contained in the compilation. 103(b). Lower courts that adopted a "sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection" test - which extended a compilation's copyright protection beyond selection and arrangement to the facts themselves - misconstrued the 1909 Act and eschewed the fundamental axiom of copyright law that no one may copyright facts or ideas. Pp. 351-361.

(c) Rural's white pages do not meet the constitutional or statutory requirements for copyright protection. While Rural has a valid copyright in the directory as a whole because it contains some forward text and some original material in the yellow pages, there is nothing original in Rural's white pages. The raw data are uncopyrightable facts, and the way in which Rural selected, coordinated, and arranged those facts is not original in any way. Rural's selection of listings - subscribers' names, towns, and telephone numbers - could not be more obvious, and lacks the modicum of creativity necessary to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression. In fact, it is plausible to conclude that Rural did not truly "select" to publish its subscribers' names and telephone numbers, since it was required to do so by state law. Moreover, there is nothing remotely creative about arranging names alphabetically in a white pages directory. It is an age-old practice, firmly rooted in tradition and so commonplace that it has come to

1984

[SHEENmaster]

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4. Once that is granted, all else must follow."

They are trying to take that freedom away by declaring that someone can own the rights to such information.

(Tin foil hats are property of the producers of the movie Signs. You had damn well better register that now, before it's too late.)

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.

Re:1984

[yourmom16]

Actually, they're trying to preserve the right to make money maintaining accurate databases of information.

You do not have a right to make a profit. You can refuse to sell a good or a service if you aren't paid enough however.

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.

The database rights cover facts; Since the facts are the same in both cases, the databases will be, and you will be in violation.

One more thing to write your congresspeople about.

[stealth.c]

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.

Re:great

[LineNoiz]

now the gathering of what can be defined as public knowledge can be protected by the IP vultures.

No, not yet. Didn't you ever watch Saturday Morning Cartoons?

And I quote:

I'm just a bill,
Yes, I'm only a bill,
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city,
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday...
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I'm still just a bill.

{Gee, bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage!}
{Well I got *this* far. When I started, I wasn't even a *bill* - I was just an idea. Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called their local congressman and he said "You're right, there ought to be a law." Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress, and I became a bill. And I'll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law.}

I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well now I'm stuck in committee
And I sit here and wait
While a few key congressmen
Discuss and debate
Whether they should
Let me be a law...
Oh how I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.

{Listen to those congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?}
{Yes. I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favourably, otherwise I may die.}
{"Die?"}
{Yeah: die in committee. Oooh! But it looks like I'm gonna live. Now I go to the House of Representatives and they vote on me.}
{If they vote "yes", what happens?}
{Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.}
{Oh no!}
{Oh yes!}

I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill,
Well then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the President to sign.
And if he signs me then I'll be a law...
Oh, how I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

{You mean even if the whole Congress says you should be a law, the President can still say no?}
{Yes, that's called a "veto". If the President vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress, and they vote on me again, and by that time it's...}

{By that time, it's very unlikely that you'll *become* a law! It's not easy to become a law, is it?}

No! But how I hope and I pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill!

{He signed you, bill! Now you're a law!}
{Oh yes!}

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)?

Because you haven't offered anything new...

[rsilvergun]

to the public in exchange for your copyright monopoly. Copyright is about give and take. We give you a limited monopoly and eventually take your copyrighted (plus have use of it for a reasonable fee in the mean time). A simple compilation of facts, while useful, isn't worthy of this protection.

Also, this could be devastating to researches. Imagine writing a paper and facing a lawsuit over your use of facts. True, the facts aren't copyrighted, but at what point have you crossed the line from using and reporting on facts to compiling them? In any case this gives companies another tool to bludgeon poor people with ala DMCA.

This is an appalling idea that's clearly meant to make a few people richer at the expense of everyone else.

Coble on his rotten bill...

[WebCowboy]

Everyone knows our society is increasingly information driven and information dependent," bill sponsor Howard Coble (R-NC) said in a statement. "We rely on accurate, timely information to make many of the decisions we must reach in a day, an hour, or a minute, and increasingly, this information comes from electronic databases."

"Without the minimal protection afforded by this legislation, we run the risk that new databases will not be created and made available to the public, thereby depriving the public of one more information source."


Maybe "depriving the public of one more information source" would be a GOOD think...in this day and age info is next to worthless because supply far exceeds demand and the quality of most is utter crap.

I for one, would be HAPPY to be deprived of one more spammer's email database, telemarketer's call list or direct-marketer's snail-mail database...

This bill is so wrong headed...these database operators seem to think they're entitled to owning the info they store in their systems. For the most part IT'S NOT THEIRS TO OWN...you can't own the fact that the clear daytime sky is blue. You can't own my vital statistics, or my street address. You have no right to and you never should because you didn't create those facts and they were never sold to you. All you did is set up a computer to store the facts and programs to sort, retrieve and utilise them. Current law protects that already and you deserve no further protection.

Sucking Noise

[nycsubway]

Hmm... I thought a heard large sucking noise. It seems my unalienable rights have just been sucked right out of me. It seems I'd have better civil liberties in Iraq.

If anyone makes fun of your tinfoil hat, they are either afraid or stupid. I'm not sure what it was like for doubters in Germany in the 1930s except it was probably similar to whats happening to them now.

I propose a new bill

[Anita Coney]

I'll call it: The Lets Give the Entire World to Corporate America Act! Let's face it, the way we're heading, it's only a matter of time.

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.

Frivolous?

[tepples]

they would have to prove that you did. Just as difficult.

Not if they have a couple orders of magnitude more money to spend on legal representation than you have.

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.

fits with corporate-driven history of copyright

[kfogel]

Nothing new here :-(.

Copyright law has been extending its domain since its inception. This process has been driven by corporate interests -- not, as the RIAA would have you believe, by creators and artists trying to "protect their rights".

If, even after the RIAA lawsuits and now this, you still think that copyright is basically a socially good idea that just gets taken too far sometimes, please see

http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel/writings/copyright. html

for a possibly eye-opening history (and a blueprint for change).

Best,
-Karl

Read The _____ Bill

[tepples]

Read the _____ bill. There seems to be a pretty high burden of proof, the republication must be "quantitatively substantial," and the information must be "time sensitive," having "temporal value."

Take a deep breath

[Undefined Parameter]

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

Use a Copyright Trap

[cmcguffin]

> How do you distinguish a list from a copy? And would not the burden of proof be on the accuser? Don't they need to provide some mechanism for making the case that it was 'their' data that was 'stolen'?

You would presumably place a copyright trap in your database.

Map makers, form companies, and the like are known to insert intentional errors in their maps in order to prevent somebody who has copied their information from claiming that the information was gathered independently.

Feist does not say that.

[nudicle]

I said this in an earlier post, but if parent is going to be +5 Insightful, I'll repeat it here:

Feist absolutely does not say that compilations of facts are not copyrightable.

I promise. Go and read it. Feist says a couple things. For purposes of this thread it says that the white pages does not have a sufficient level of originality or creativity to rise to copyrightable level. The originality or creativity spoken of for factual compilations would be in their selection, coordination, or arrangement.

From the headnotes in the link you provided:

A compilation is not copyrightable per se, but is copyrightable only if its facts have been "selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 101 (emphasis added). Thus, the statute envisions that some ways of selecting, coordinating, and arranging data are not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection. Even a compilation that is copyrightable receives only limited protection, for the copyright does not extend to facts contained in the compilation.

Compilations of facts are copyrightable if they attain a certain threshold of originality in their arrangement. If a compilation reaches this level and attains copyright, however, the facts themselves are not copyrighted.

I haven't read the new bill linked to in the original post and have no comment on how it treats protection of facts... the point of this post is just to point out a misunderstanding of what Feist stands for.

Re:YES!!!! Thank you, Congress!

[Abcd1234]

Or, conversely, all those companies out there that have *your* personal information in *their* database can now claim copyright on information about *you*!

OT: SCO's copyright for profit argument

[realcheese]

I know this is off topic but this quote struck me as disproving SCO's argument that copyright is all about a profit motive:

"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Art. I, 8, cl. 8. Accord, Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975). To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original [499 U.S. 340, 350] expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work."

The first thing I noticed

[rock_climbing_guy]

is that Amazon.com is opposing the bill. It's great to see that Amazon.com is continuing their stellar practice of vigilantly opposing intellectual property abuse.

Write to your representative. Example:

[CedgeS]

Write to your representative. Chances are they won't be hearing much from anyone on this bill, so just a few letters from constituants may be significantly pursuasive.

Here's mine:

Representative Walden,

Please oppose H.R. 3261, the "Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act". It is an unconstitutional violation of free speech. Passing this bill will only cause unnecessary litigation and expense and, in its disposal, consume the valuable resources of our high courts.

The primary purpose of this bill is laid out in Section 3, point a. It prohibits the "making available in commerce" a "substantial part" of a database made by another person. The offending section is included below for your convenience. This prohibits commercial, or profitable, speech when it contains a large portion of another person's database. This violates the freedom of speech laid out in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law" .... "abridging the freedom of speech"

It is permissible for congress to pass laws which infringe on freedom of speech only in a few very specific instance, such as against traitorous speech, and the exceptions of Article 1, Section 8, Line 1, which establish the power of congress to implement copyrights and patents.

From Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

This power is granted to congress to encourage authors and inventors, and by extension musicians, artists, and filmmakers, by granting them exclusive rights to their works for a limited time. This exclusive right to the work violates the freedom of speech of others, but is explicitly allowed to encourage art and technology. By precedent, it has two requirements, originality and creativity; the author must be the origin of the work, and it must require some step of creativity to produce it.

Individual facts, like telephone numbers, sizes of stars, or names for babies, are not original. A database, or collection, of these is original in so far as the author's chose which pieces of information to include. Historically, the US Supreme Court agrees, as shown in the case of FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC., v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., INC., quoted here from Syllabus, point a:

(a) Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original and, thus, are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves. This fact/expression dichotomy severely limits the scope of protection in fact-based works. Pp. 344-351.

Representative Walden, please help keep our already overrun legal system and high courts clear from unnecessary litigation; oppose H.R.3261. Please dispose of this ill-conceived bill now, before our it causes our nation, its corporations, and its individuals great expense of disposing of it later.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration,

Your concerned constituent,

Cedric A. Shock

H.R.3261

Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST MISAPPROPRIATION OF DATABASES.

(a) LIABILITY- Any person who makes available in commerce to others a quantitatively substantial part of the information in a database generated, gathered, or maintained by another person, knowing t

Don't worry it's IMPOSSIBLE

[An Anonymous Hero]

Elsevier: Mr. Russell, I sue you for quoting my copyrighted database.

B. Russell: Oh, I see, you claim to be the copyright holder. Do you have proof?

Elsevier: Easy. Here is the relevant quote from the U.S. copyright registry...

B. Russell: Gotcha! You can't do that! :-)

Price lists and places like Fatwallet.

[dameron]

Sounds like this would make it possible for a retailer to copyright the information contained in weekly flyers and prohibit places like fatwallet.com from listing them.

This could have a possibly monstrous effect on online comparison shopping. Things like www.froogle.com become impossible as retailers begin copyrighting their inventory and price databases.

-dameron

Here goes my karma...

[rewt66]

(like I have much of it to lose anyway.)

Let's say that I create a database that takes non-trivial effort to create. And let's say that the only sources of data that I use are readily available to others. Now you're telling me that the only protection I've got for that database is trade secret? What if I want to let the public access the database, via the Web or whatever? Oops, there goes the trade secret.

Let me give you a couple examples from history. Roget's Thesaurus was basically the dictionary, re-indexed. Young's Concordance was a list of all words in the King James Bible, stating in which passage each word appeared (giving a few words of context), and what the original Greek or Hebrew word was for the English word. Both Roget and Young spent a significant amount of effort on these (at a rough guess, 10 to 20 years, which makes it pretty close to the life work of each man.) Both were published as books. And, if I understand correctly, both were copyrighted under the then-existent laws. Both these books were essentially "databases on paper".

It seems to me that this bill is just extending the same protection to electronic databases that they would have if the same information was published in a dead-tree version. I don't see what's so horrible about it.

Artistic merit? You're telling me that only works that have artistic merit get copyright protection? How much "artistic merit" does the dictionary have? It's copyrighted. For that matter, how about the POSIX spec? Artistic merit? Don't make me laugh. But it's copyrighted.

Re:YES!!!! Thank you, Congress!

[poot_rootbeer]

Y'know, sometimes the general lack of knowledge about and understanding of priciples of copyright law on Slashdot makes me irritable and upset. This is one of them.

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

Simply replicating a piece of information does not constitute a copyright violation. You have to demonstrate that the copy was DIRECTLY DERIVED FROM your original. Did the company access your database server to get their copy of your information? If not, your allegations of copyright violation won't get very far.

Here's a sentence I just made up: "I do not like them." This same sentence happens to appear in Dr. Seuss' book, "Green Eggs and Ham", but does that mean I've violated Seuss' copyright by typing that sentence? No more than a company that gets your name and address from somewhere is guilty of violating the copyright on your imaginary database.

The SCO Connection

[neongenesis]

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.

Prior Art?

[bigattichouse]

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