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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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!

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!

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.

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...

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.

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 !

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: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.

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.

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

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*!

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.

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