Slashdot Mirror
Australian Judge Rules Facts Cannot Be Copyrighted
nfarrell writes "Last week, an Australian Judge ruled that copyright laws do not apply to collections of facts, regardless of the amount of effort that was spent collecting them. In this case, the case surrounded the reproduction of entries from the White and Yellow Pages, but the ruling referred to a previous case involving IceTV, which republishes TV guides. Does this mean that other databases of facts, such as financial data, are also legally able to be copied and redistributed?" Here are analyses from a former legal adviser to the directory publisher which prevailed as the defendant in this case, and from Smart Company.
...was that fact? Just want to clarify before I download it.
What is this "language dood" that I should study? Google just says "Did you mean "Language Door"?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
If it was not copyrightable then there would be no way to recoup the cost of creating 3-D models of buildings.
Right, I think people are forgetting about the part in the Constitution where it says, "The Congress shall make laws ensuring that all business expenses are recoupable in full." IIRC it comes right before, "The Congress shall construct laws to ensure that current business models remain protected from innovation," and "The Congress shall bail out any large companies which are failing."
I mean, we can't let any big businesses fail to be profitable, right? That'd be bad for the economy.
Would you like a side of ridicule to go with that portion of fail?