Congress Again Considering Database Protection Bill

An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo News is reporting on a new bill in Congress: '... a proposed bill that would prevent wholesale copying of school guides, news archives and other databases which do not enjoy copyright protection.'" The idea of database protection legislation has been kicking around for a long time. It's a bad idea, but it would make a lot of money for a few companies, so they keep pushing it, and no doubt will eventually get it passed.

Where's the "bad" part here?

I don't see how this is a "bad idea." I've long felt it unfair that companies can simply take other databases and make them available publicly (such as anybirthday.com [anybirthday.com]) and make money off it. An organization that puts significant work into compiling a database should be entitled to the same level of copyright protection as an organization creating any other work.

This law would simply close a legal loophole that prevented the application of copyright law to databases composed of "facts"--which currently cannot be copyrighted and are automatically forced into the public domain. Isn't it better to give the publishers of such databases a choice?

Re:Where's the "bad" part here?

On the surface it does make some sense. You work hard to come up with something and somebody just walk in takes it and starts to sell it themselves.

But take a look at copyright. The idea behind copyright is that creative work is good for our culture. Ideally it would be free to anyone, but then there would be no incentive to create. Maybe artists would create anyway but rather than risk a bunch of starving painters and writers perhaps we can find a balance between what is good for society (free unencumbered access of work of cultural importance and the ability to make derivative work) and what is good for the artist. Copyright does this by giving the artist a limited amount of time to control the work. Culture doesn't suffer too much because the term is (or used to be ) limited and the artist can have a stab at making a living. It's a balance.

Now look at this case. The availability of data--court records for instance--is of fundamental importance to a free society. Striking a balance between the public and the collators of this information will be much trickier. It is much more critical than a novel or play and it diminishes in value to the public over time. While a Melville novel still holds cultural value, court records from Melville's time won't help us police our judicial system. Once someone has control over public information, they can charge what they like for it, withhold it, and prevent others from publishing it. That is a recipe for abuse and for very expensive information.

Also consider where the data comes from. A quote from the Yahoo article:

Backers of the measure say it would allow database providers to protect themselves against those who simply cut and paste their databases and resell them, or make them available for free online.

So they don't want somebody cutting a pasting. Where exactly did the providers get the information in the first place? They cut and paste it from somewhere else. And that is the point...they didn't create the information. It does not belong to them. It is public. And by giving them license to control it and prevent others from using it we lose something very valuable, of critical interest to everyone and give it to a handful so they may profit. It just isn't worth it.

Re:Where's the "bad" part here?

The problem is that most databases are simply lists of facts. Give someone ownership of a database, and you have given them ownership of the facts; it's not at all like traditional copyrights over prose or over music, which are designed to protect expressive, artistic content.

Imagine that you decide to make a database called "Names of Professional Writers of Manhattan and their Phone Numbers". You spend ten years of your life calling for and assembling submissions from writers and you finally make your list available for free on your Web site only to get sued the very next day by the company who makes the phone book... because your data is a subset of their copyrighted database of all Manhattan phone numbers, too large a subset to be covered by fair use.

You have to either pay them to publish the information that you found, or you have to take it offline.

Re:Where's the "bad" part here?

Legal loophole my foot. Copyright law is supposed to apply to creative work, nothing else. And the point of copyright law is to advance society in general, not the people who make creative stuff (the only reason we do anything for them is so that they'll make more creative stuff).

Who thinks they can write this bill?

I don't know about you people, but I have lost all faith in the folks in Washington. They seem to be very good at a lot of things but are not especially good at writing legislation. So what do they do? They ask corporations what they would like and if they would be willing to help draft the language. It's outrageous.

Copyright law is designed to protect CREATIVE work. Data is not creative work and no matter how hard it may be to compile said data, it should not result in you owning the data to the exclusion of everyone else. There is no way anyone in Washington will be able to write this bill in such a way that it doesn't screw everybody except for the lawyers duking out infringement cases based on it.

With the internet data has become so easy to find and compile that just about anyone can do it. A lot of people have figured out that this spells trouble for their business plan that was invented in the fifties and are now trying to make a land grab of sorts to protect their bottom line.

You're Not a Citizen, You're a Consumer

So just STFU and consume. That's the message corporate America and it's subsidiary, Congress, are sending you. Increased IP protection is one way to keep low-stakes players out of the game. Increasing the legal risk of publishing counteracts that the Internet has reduced the actual cost of publishing to practically zero. Patenting algorithms counteracts that small software houses can compete with big ones.

The idea is to keep a wall between the peasants and the nobles. If the peasants build ladders, make the wall higher. If they start digging tunnels, put in a moat. If trees overhang the wall, cut them down. And if the peasants ever figure out how to turn straw into gold and mint their own coins, you burn all their straw and cut off their hands.

more power for companies less pwr for people

Each time we turn around in the U.S. it appears that the power of coporations has grown..... at the expense of individual rights. Hopefully this will not pass, but it very well might. It is stupid the violations they say they wish to prevent are already covered by existing laws, reguarless of whether a database is involved or not.

btw wtf did happen to FAIR USE??????

feel free to quote me..... IF YOU WANNA BE SUED =)

I don't get it...

I broke down and read the article and I still don't understand what are they trying to protect? Is it the database model like how it's structured and named? That really doesn't make any sense. If I "stole" ebay's database (don't they have a massive database taking many file servers to hold?) what good would that do me? How can anyone make money off of copyrighting a database. It doesn't make any sense... I probably need to know way more about databases and how they work to understand this I guess. Or maybe a copy of PHB's For Non-Dummies to understand the buisiness model behind database copyrights.

Current law

Why can't current law apply. If a database contains original authored work and isn't just a big grab of available data from many sources, why shouldn't existing copyright law apply?

And why should big grabs of pre-existing data be protected?

Just because it's on a computer is no reason to get stupid about how law applies.

Re:Current law

And why should big grabs of pre-existing data be protected?

I doubt the lobbies in favor of this sort of thing really believe that there is any sort of moral or ethical imperative to "protect" databases.

They're simply lobbying for this type of protection because they already have large databases and they think they might actually get it. If they do, they can pull an instant SCO and double or triple their revenue streams.

It's not about "this will be good for people", it's about "Heh... this is sort of slimy... but if we could pass it, our stock would double, so who cares!"

And for the politicians it's simply a matter of "This will piss off a few informed voters, but if the contributions are large enough, the $$$ will subsidize the buying of new voters to replace them with tons left over!"

Don't you dare comment!

If you're taking the time to write a comment on this story, DON'T. Instead, take that same amount of time to write a one page, reasoned, intelligent letter to your Senators (you have two, you know that?) telling them that you disapprove of this bill, telling them WHY (privacy violation, overextension of copyright, and so forth are good places to start), and encouraging them to work against it. Not tomorrow morning, RIGHT NOW. Get away from that Submit button and go write a letter to someone who could actually do something. Then send it snail mail to their LOCAL office (not DC office), or fax it. (Not email. Many offices don't pay attention to email, although some do.)

I don't want to see any replies to this post. Get away from Slashdot and do something other than whine, or you'll have no one to blame but yourself.

Are you still here? Stop reading and start acting!

And yet, somehow, I don't think this'll do much..

Go onto any filesharing app and there's a plethora of books on any subject you could possibly want. Pr0n, stories, information, research, etc.

Will this do much to stop the flow of information? Not for anyone who has an internet connection and the know-how to use it. >:)

this is a bit silly

We've had database rights in Europe since 1996 and the sky doesn't seem to have fallen down.

Can any of the gloom-and-doom mongers point to any abuses of the law in Europe? (other, that is, than a general dislike and/or misunderstanding of copyright law)

THEY use the RIAA approach ....

"If database producers know they have some law to fall back on when someone steals their database, they'll be much more willing to get that information out there for free," he said. "Without that law, there's really nothing to protect them."

It is like the allegation of the RIAA that if the artists cannot derive their income from these 5 major record companies, they might be less "willing" to create new music. B.S. Here too a similar wishy-washy justifcation is used to convince the state to become the whores of these "middlemen" between the data and the consumers of the data.

If they can comandeer the law apparatus of the state, and the consequent police infrastructure that comes along as a part of the deal to implement the law, they are saying that they might be "willing" to offer the information for free. Though I think the reality will be that once you can "protect your data" then you will start charging for it. Can I compile another telephone directory ? And even if I can compile it again how does this "output" benefit society as well because it is just unnecessary duplication ?

Data passes thru a tool to become information, information passes thru a person to become knowledge, and knowledge passes thru the syystem to become action.

And worse, the actions in this case and those of RIAA kill off a class of products and stiffles innovation. I would lke the same data not only to be available in different formats, but also in different context - and sometimes in unexpected context. And these different formats are born when companies use the same data, and provide the ability to manage data with their software tools and websites. They are now helping string together this data into information by allowing you differnt options of viewing, and also placing it in a unique context based on the data and information that surrounds this display.

Thus, in the shortsighted vision we will be willing to sacrifice a host of information-building tools, and a host of knowledge-enabling tools - all to satisfy the people who are making these data-collections tools. Data passes thru a tool to become information, information passes thru a person to become knowledge, and knowledge passes thru the system to become action. All this is being blocked, because the people with the data - are now wanting to hoard it and thus preventing everything built upon it.

In Related news...

Funny when I just read the following:

Almost everything is for sale on the Internet -- even the Social Security numbers of top government officials like CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft, consumer advocates warned Wednesday. The California-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights said for $26 each it was able to purchase the Social Security numbers and home addresses for Tenet, Ashcroft and other top Bush administration officials, including Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser. [

original story [chron.com]]

Can you say propaganda? Asscroft and his cabals are using this instance to promote the USA PATRIOT ACT which is odd considering some of the things he proposes will affect businesses... But wait let's call the kettle black now shall we?

When Border Patrol agents came across the corpses of 14 Mexican immigrants who died trying to cross the searing Arizona desert in 2001, a brand new tool helped U.S. authorities identify the bodies and, eventually, the smugglers who abandoned them.

The tool was a database containing the personal information of 65 million voting-age Mexican citizens. The U.S. government bought access to it for $1 million a year from a giant data vendor called ChoicePoint.

U.S. drug and immigration investigators prized the data, accorting to the Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement sources, because it gave them latitude to track suspects inside Mexico without alerting local authorities. original article [usatoday.com])

Where's Tyler Durden when we need him most

The European version

Is known as the database directive [eu.int]

When reading the directive, remember that the only the articles really have force, not the recitals. A quick selection of quotes:

'database` shall mean a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means.
[...]
The copyright protection of databases provided for by this Directive shall not extend to their contents and shall be without prejudice to any rights subsisting in those contents themselves.
[...]
the author of a database shall have the exclusive right to carry out or to authorize:
(a) temporary or permanent reproduction[...]
(b) translation, adaptation[...]
(c) any form of distribution to the public[...]

Member States shall have the option of providing for limitations on the rights set out in Article 5 in the following cases:[...]
(d) where other exceptions to copyright which are traditionally authorized under national law are involved
[...]
SUI GENERIS RIGHT

Article 7

Object of protection
1. Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database.
[...]
The right provided for in Article 7 shall run from the date of completion of the making of the database. It shall expire fifteen years from the first of January of the year following the date of completion.

Depends on the wording

As others have pointed out, we have this in the EU (UK) already and it hasn't been egregiously abused. The reasoning behind has nothing to do with cut and paste - it's about protecting the effort the owner has made to collect/assemble that particular set of information. Database protection extends fifteen years, but even before that, anyone can market a similar collection - assuming they assembled it themselves.

So it depends on the wording of the US bill. The UK version is more akin to copyright - this particular collection is mine, and you can't pass it off as yours. If the US bill is more like patents - nobody else can collect this information, ever - then you're sunk.

So I'd suggest checking the wording before you mouth off. If it's only a protection of that particular company's particular effort, there may be little to worry about.

How would Europeans solve this?

If you all are so afraid of this Bill being passed in Congress, why don't you learn something from how things are going here in Europe about software patents?

If you try to educate Joe Average about how bad this is for them, maybe close down a few (by which I mean a lot) websites and arrange for a protest to be held in front of the White House, maybe you can stop this Bill from passing?
At least you may be able to delay the voting for a month and buy more time to educate people and have them write to their people in the Congress.

Just to make things clear, I'm a Belgian myself. So if any of the things I stated above are not feasable or doable, it's because I don't know the way things are done in the USA in detail.
If you are already sure that this Bill is going to pass, you can do nothing but wait and see just that happening. But IMHO a better way is to let those who make your laws know you don't want this Bill to be passed. Let people know just why this is so bad for them.
If the members of the Congress don't want to listen to the people who voted for them, but just to the large companies who are going to make a lot of money from this Bill, then there is a serious problem in your democratic system. Laws are made for the people, not for a few big companies to increase their profit.

Sven

IANAL, but

"In other cases, pornographic Web site operators have copied real-estate listings and lawyers' directories to lure unwitting visitors, he said. The law could help those who make information available for free online, said Kupferschmid."

Do we really need a law that allows porno-sites to sue house-owners and lawyers when they download their online resources?

"If database producers know they have some law to fall back on when someone steals their database, they'll be much more willing to get that information out there for free,"

I see. The classic SCO-ploy.

"Violators could be shut down and be forced to pay triple the damages they incurred."

...and this, your honour, is why I believe that this lawyer copied my client's porno-database!
Judge: I'm disgusted. Shoot him down with quad damage!
Lawyer: You are transgressing the law!
Judge: I'm exaggerating. Frag this bastard.

-- On a second thought, let's not pass this - it's a silly law...

What is really wrong with this bill ?

Sorry, but i dont see how this bill is really anything new or how it is 'hurting' our freedom?

lets take this example from the article.
"In one instance, a Minnesota magazine publisher had no legal recourse when its entire directory of local schools was copied and redistributed. In other cases, pornographic Web site operators have copied real-estate listings and lawyers' directories to lure unwitting visitors, he said. " This is online, and apparently it is totally Legal and O.K. to do that. But why? Many years ago (5) i wanted to take the entire compiled Car Stereo and Electronics componant directory (like, 300-400 pages), turn it into a database where people can search for things online. Now i knew that to just go and do that was illegal because i would of been publishing copyrighted information without the authors consent (which i actually did get an Ok to do this).

The directory was compiled and created from public information (calling the manu. and getting specs and prices), but because I did not or take part in creating the directory itself.

The Information contained in the directory is not copyrighted, but the entire directory in itself is whats copyrighted.

If I spent xx time creating a listing of schools in the area, and someone else came along and copied that listing exactly how i had created, i would be pretty upset.

This has nothing to do with 'OMG RIAA SUCKS' or 'USA IS BOUGHT BY CORPORATIONS OMG IM MOVING TO CANADA'. The companies that create products, provide services and distribute invaluable information and other data have EVERY SAME right that the people of this country do.

WWMLD?

I wonder which side Matthew Lesko (the guy wearing the question mark suit on TV commercials) would be on? I assume pushing the bill, since his business is selling publically available data. And looking like the Riddler. I always think he's about to do something terrible to the Capital building when he's in front of it in a commercial.

Doesn't copyright exist?

Wouldn't a database be a collection?
Even if the individual work is not copyrighted, the collection can be.
Copyright law covers this, more laws are not required.

Defeatist Attitude

"It's a bad idea, but it would make a lot of money for a few companies, so they keep pushing it, and no doubt will eventually get it passed."

With enough people with that attitude, I wouldn't be surprised. Ever write your legislator, or maybe vote?

Remember the US Supreme Court's decision...

...in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co. [cornell.edu] (1991). Fesit copied portions of Rural's phone directory to create their own, competing product after Rural refused permission to use it. The Court noted that "sweat of the brow" (i.e. effort alone) is not sufficient to justify copyright protection: there must be an element of creativity as well, and arranging the entries in alphabetical order is not creativity. I'm not a USian but this seems a useful thing to quote in your letters to Congress critters...

So what's the problem here?

I work for, and own stock in, a database publishing company. After reading the /. story, I thought I should start making plans for my retirement as Congress was about to shoveling cash into my grubby hands. But after reading the Yahoo article, I don't really see it happening. *sigh*

For those who are having trouble parsing the proposed legislation, consider the following scenario: You get the bright idea to publish a directory of computer consultancies in the Pacific North West, knowing that time-pressed IT geeks would love a fast way to find specialists with a particular skill. So you start a company, spend a year finding and calling individuals & other companies, asking how big they are, what services they offer, what types of projects they tackle, what certifications their staff has, etc.

Finally the big day arrives and you print your directory and mail it to 10000 Seattle-area IT workers. Two weeks later, you're web surfing and find nwcomputerservices.com. And it's got all your data! Same companies, same info, even some of the same mistakes! You're pissed - they've ripped you off. But when you talk to your lawyer, she tells you there's little you can do. It's not illegal for them to copy your data, as long as they didn't duplicate your published (and copyrighted) printed directory.

In practice, US directory publishers work around this situation via license agreements, existing law, etc. So while this law would probably be a good thing (similar laws exist in the EU and probably elsewhere), it's hard to see that it's going to massively transfer cash to directory owners, or make us all slaves to the big corporations, or whatever else michael was worrying about when he posted the article.

First Hand Experience

I once owned such a database. It was a collection of every publically elected official in the nation (from school board trustees up to federal representatives). It took a few years to collect al the information, and since I'm not teribbly good at marketing, I had to close it about 10 years ago.

At the time, I never thought of any of the information in the database as being copyrighted. The format it was presented in certainly was, and I would have been upset if someone with better marketing skills just took my research (and data entry costs) and republished it, but I don't think I would have minded at all if they took exerpts and republished (it is freely availabe information anyway). Don't know if anyone cares, but that is my thoughts.

Someone has to say it...

All your database are belong to us.

I'm surprised people are against this.

Given that most Slashdot posters tend to be very pro-privacy, I'm very surprised that the majority here seem to be against this bill which looks like something to promote privacy.

Do you want companies to be able to copy and sell your kids' student records? Do you want your medical records to be traded among potential insurance companies? Do you want your income tax records bought and sold all over the place?

So, I'm confused. Why don't people think this bill is a good thing?

I think the big point here is...

Is that databases are most often not creative works but compilations of data that other people own. If someone farms your email address or phone number from some source? Anyone else can get it from the same or different sources, and ultimately its your personal information, not theirs. I think one should be afraid that later there will be legislation, or even the twisted interpretation of this legislation, that would say the data itself was owned by the database compiler, allowing people to sue you for having a telephone number they farmed. Yes this is an extreme example, but we have seen equally stupid examples that became reality. If our elected lawmakers wanted to help us they would stop companies from selling their databases, make it so that every company has to work for their data, but I live in California so I concede the point.

Enlighten me...

At what point does intelligent processing of data produce a copyrightable work, under current law? On the far end you have a mere random compilation of, say, books or book titles from Gutenberg.net, in the middle you have a database of words in Gutenberg's docs, sorted by statistical frequency, and finally you have a student paper on the use of a given word in Shakespeare's writings. Speaking from experience, a suitable paper often contains nothing more than a seemingly "intelligent" re-presentation of totally uninteresting data.

So what is a database? May we also call it an intelligent representation of data? If some boundary is to be drawn in copyright, "intelligence" will need to be measured. As an artistic statement, I might be inclined to list all the words to Hamlet in scrambled order. If accompanied by a suitable justification (that's all modern art is these days), could I say it's more than a dumb "collection"? Or what about intelligently linked databases, such as gnoosic.com?

For a moment, recall the ingenious attempts at casting DeCSS code as ordinary speech. Well, could the same not be done with any other work? Should a paper describing the countless associations contained in gnoosic be any more copyrightable than the database itself? If gnoosic added scripted commentary of associations (based on some theory or other), would it be more than a database? If not, what about a paper adding theoretical commentary to the clearly intelligent associations present?

Data is data is data is Dada.

Another Threat to Democracy...

Here's how: I want to change some electrical wiring in my house. I can do it myself but I must follow the electrical code as passed by the Nebraska Legislature. So, I go to the library to look up what code the Laws of the State of Nebraska say I must follow when wiring my home. Then is when I find out that the State Laws (i.e., the electrical code) are COPYRIGHTED by a special interest group and to get a copy of the law, so that I can remain legal, I must pay them $600!!! These are the same special interests that lobbied the State Senators to get provisions into the code that gave their members special priviledge$ that don't require $pecial talent$.

The corporations, with the help of blind, stupid or greed politicans, have stolen the American public blind.

Re:of course

As a non-American citizen living the US, I'm surprised at how many people constantly bash their government over stuff like this. Of course, I haven't lived all my life, but still...

If the US Govt. were only interested in money and companies that generate a lot, what about donotcall.gov [donotcall.gov]?

Re:of course

If the US Govt. were only interested in money and companies that generate a lot, what about donotcall.gov?

because telemarketers calling during dinner became a problem that affected politicians directly. Problems that don't affect them directly and immediately are largely ignored (eg: microsoft's monopoly, the riaa as acting as a governmen-sanctioned vigilante, air pollution, inner-city crime, etc)

Re:of course

It's the ongoing battle of special interests vs general or diffuse interest. On the whole, the general interest of the population to be able to copy databases is probably worth more than the money that a few companies can make from copyrighting them.

Let's say (to pull some numbers out of the air) that DB copying is worth about $1 apiece to everyone in the country (total nearly $300M), but only $50M apiece to three companies to prevent it. $300M beats $150M, right?

Alas, those three companies might be willing to put up $1M each ($3M) in lobbying efforts, but only a tiny fraction of the general population would be willing to give up the 1 cent each to match that (besides which, overhead on trying to collect that would kill it).

Thus the political power tends to accrue to the special interests -- however diverse those special interests might be -- to the detriment of the general interest.

Re:of course

I find it rediculous when companies try to charge for access to their news archives (eg: nytimes). For the most part, the only articles that are of interest to anyone are those that are from the current edition. The current articles are mainly read for pleasure. I can understand paying for that.

However, old articles are only of interest to people doing research. I can think of no single activity that advances civilization faster than research. Research leads to understanding, which leads to improvements on old ideas. I believe that any time someone has the desire to research something, that desire shouldn't be hindered in any way. Access to databases of old news articles should be free.

Re:Helpless.

When are we going to start putting people against the wall?

Envision a situation where enough people would care about the shitty situation right now to overcome the power of the state.

Didn't think you could. That's your answer: never. Society in the US is constructed in such a way that, even when there is injustice, the general public is too apathetic to get too worked up about it. As long as beer is available, the football games go on, and the soap operas keep running, the body politic is fat and satiated.

Ever watch "Dark Angel"?

When the miserable future of "Dark Angel" has been made real by corporate greed and government jack-boots, then the US citizens might try to rise up and retake the freedom they so foolishly keep letting go.

By the time they wake up to what they're doing to themselves, the American Apparatchik will be too firmly entrenched. They will of course claim to be capitalists in a democracy, but you won't be able to tell the difference in the common citizen's life.

Re:of course

Backers of the measure say it would allow database providers to protect themselves against those who simply cut and paste their databases and resell them, or make them available for free online.

This is laughable. From where did "database providers" get THEIR information? (By cutting and pasting someone else's database of course.)

Collecting publicly available information and presenting it in a useful format does require investment may provide users value - this what search engines like Google do - but it seems to me that it should be HOW this information is collected and presented - rather than the information itself which needs to be protected.

In essence copyright protects format, not content. Google can patent the way they collect information and copyright they way they present information, but they can't claim ownership to the information itself.

If protection is extended to content, it would seem to me to be an entirely new class of intellectual property which, at least in the US, would have no Constitutional basis and which the US Congress should have no authority to create.

Re:of course

This is laughable. From where did "database providers" get THEIR information? (By cutting and pasting someone else's database of course.)

If you extrapolate your assertion to the logical conclusion, then what you are saying is that no-one put the information (represented as data) into the original database. Doesn't whoever put the data there in the first place deserve the rights over that information, assuming that it was not in the public domain, and that they wish to excercise said rights ?