Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Congress Again Considering Database Protection Bill 128

Posted by michael from the you-thought-copyright-was-bad dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress Again Considering Database Protection Bill More

Congress Again Considering Database Protection Bill

Comments Filter:

  • Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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 ca

    • Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mrs. Grundy ( 680212 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @04:10AM (#6886219) Homepage
      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.

      • [serious point follows satire]
        As a farmer, I know how appaling theft of intellectual property can be. I selectively breed plants, spend much time and effort to produce healthy and unique plants, and then people can come along and take them, use them for their own purposes, profit from them and all without rewarding my efforts and ingenuity.

        Society needs to realise that everything should be owned. Look at all those programs that use your presence in a crowd, say at a local sporting event, to profit. What do

      • One of the major goals of this is to require the federal government to compile databases by its own rules, and not buy commercial databases that don't. For example, inside the government, census info about race isn't supposed to be available to the IRS, which presumably has no legitimate reason to need it. Currently, the law has been relaxed somewhat, to let the FBI and others get info about people that is only very tangentially related to crime prevention. Letting these agencies get even further around the
    • The problem is that easy access to information is almost assumed to be a right.

      The answer is flamebait: either you like capitalism or you prefer a more socialist economy.

      Since the US has aspects of both styles of economy built into it, the argument whether this service (the publication of databases of public domain data) should be provided by private industry or if it should be provided by the government.

      Both sides of the argument have their strengths and weaknesses:
      private industry is generally able to

    • Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The bad part here is that the information in question is not covered by copyright. You cannot copyright public information.

      If some organization wants to compile a database of public information and use it privately, fine.

      If they want to allow people to access such a database under contract that prevents divulging or mass copying of that data, fine.

      If they want to stick that same database on the internet where anyone can access it for free but then get all whiney when someone harvests it all and makes th

    • Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @04:22AM (#6886247) Homepage
      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.
      • you are misunderstanding copyright law. If you haven't *copied* their copyrighted database then they cannot sue you for breaching their *copyright*.
        • Of course they can sue you. If the information matches and they have a financial interest, watch them sue you, and watch them bend over backward to prove that you did copy it, even if they know very well (behind closed doors) that you didn't.

          People can sue you for almost anything, it's all just paperwork. Yes, it has happened to me. No, it doesn't mean they'll win in court, and yes, you will have a chance to present your own case and evidence, but nine times out of ten if they're bigger and richer than you
          • I'm an English IP lawyer. We've had database rights for years. I'm not aware of any abuses. Then again, our litigation system isn't anywhere near as out of control as yours (assuming you're in the US).

            In the fucked-up world of American litigation, if someone wants to sue you then they will. This is not an argument against database rights.
      • That's why database protection is not the same as copyright protection. Database right is normally more restricted in duration (eg, 15 years in the uk) and in scope.

        Your hypothetical database "Names of Professional Writers of Manhattan and their Phone Numbers" would not infringe upon the "Names and Phone Numbers of all Manhattan residents" database; but other people would not be allowed to redistributed your database without your permission.
      • If you came up with a database of millions of records and couldn't come up with a shred of documentation as to where, when and how you acquired the information, you most likely stole it.

        I've used public records databases for twenty years some of which are now available through services like "KnowX." The various levels of government involved are only required to make certain information freely available, which can mean having a printout in a particular office. Most do not have web access from the source. Ev

    • Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Magic Thread ( 692357 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @04:23AM (#6886248) Homepage Journal
      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).
      • Copyright law is supposed to apply to creative work, nothing else.
        Noe why do you think they use the term intelectual property? Bluring the lines is an effective tactic.
      • Ok, so let's follow your logic out step by step.
        1) The purpose of copyright law is to advance society in general.
        2) Copyright holders receive advantages/compensation to encourage them to create more stuff.
        3) Huge leap
        4) Copyright law isn't supposed to advance the people who make create stuff.

        So if copyright law is meant to advance society and its mechanism for doing that is to provide incentive to the creators, how would you imagine that copyright law is not meant to benifit creators? If you think it's an
        • Oh, it benefits the creators, all right, but you have to remember that's not the reason for its existence. When lawmakers forget that, we get stupid shit like the DMCA.
          • Then what is the reason? The entire mechanism of copyright relies on the idea that the creators need encouraged and protected. That's the whole flipping point and the *entire* means to the end. Yes, it benefits the creators. It is meant to be that way.

            We got DMCA because large companies needed to lock up their products even tighter to drive up income, not because lawmakers forgot something. It was lobbied into place with very large sums of money. Don't confuse the DMCA issues with copyright issues.
            • Irregardless, that points out a flaw in the *usage* of copyright and does not validate your claim that the reason isn't to encourage creators.

              Irregardless isn't a word. If it were a word, it would mean that one of the choices is held in regard; that is, the opposite of regardless.

              HTH. HAND.

  • Who thinks they can write this bill? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mrs. Grundy ( 680212 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:44AM (#6886167) Homepage
    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.
    • The proposed bill would provide a legal umbrella for publishers of factual information, such as courtroom decisions and professional directories, similar to the copyright laws that protect music, novels and other creative works.

      If they protect court room decisions and perhaps legislation text and parliamentary proceedings (hansards), then perhaps we could start claiming "ignorance" as an excuse.

      Next thing you know the copyright people will be persecuting anyone who has an online copy of the material
    • The Internet (and modern computing and telecommunications in general) spell trouble for a lot of outmoded business models. This kind of creative destruction has occurred throughout the history of the Industrial Revolution (blacksmiths, carriage-builders, gas light manufacturers, you name it.) What makes this century so different is that corporations aren't taking the traditional two ways toward fixing their business model when obsolesced by new technology. These are a. have a going out of business sale o

    • You're Not a Citizen, You're a Consumer (Score:5, Insightful)

      by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@RABBIT ... minus herbivore> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @11:28AM (#6887342) Homepage
      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by atarione ( 601740 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:44AM (#6886168)
    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 =)

    • Absolutely this type of legislation protects the interests of large corporations.

      The question I have is how does this benefit the average citizen?

      After all, corporations are not entitled to representation in congresss and yet we constantly get legislation in their favor. Write your congressperson and leet them know you don't approve of legislation that only helps special interests.

      M

  • I don't get it... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zakabog ( 603757 ) <john.jmaug@com> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:48AM (#6886180)
    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.
    • The databases they are talking about are sites like eLibrary [elibrary.com] that simply have arrangements with all the world's periodicals to archive their articles. eLibrary then charges a fee to access their collection of old articles.
    • 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?

      It would only help you if you cared about their trade secrets. Copyrighting is irrelevant; either the data is proprietary or it isn't.

  • Current law (Score:5, Insightful)

    by porkface ( 562081 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @04:08AM (#6886216) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @04:32AM (#6886258) Homepage
      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!"

    • Re:Current law (Score:2, Interesting)

      by arkhan_jg ( 618674 )
      The short answer is, these databases are composed of facts.

      If the database is composed of copyrightable information; say, a web-based database of modern poems by various authors, where permission has been granted by the authors to publish in that format, gratis, then the database would be copyrighted, and the copyright would belong to the authors of the pieces. If it followed the music industry model, then copyright would be assigned to the database creator.

      Either way, the contents of the database are cop
      • While I agree with you, I think there should be some protection from wholesale copying of the database. I think what most companies are worried about is them spending thousands of dollars compiling the facts in the database, and once they put it online, someone comes along and just copies it for nothing. I remember claims about this with I think TV guide type websites. One company compiled the list and put it on their site (which was a revenue stream for them) and then another site just ripped the conten
        • OK, I do feel somewhat of a twinge for the poor sods who have their hard work stolen, and used by someone for nothing. I've been in a similar situation myself.

          The problem is, if a law is passed, it WILL be broad enough to allow other companies to twist it, and use to keep their customers in the dark about their product (remember the EULA clause from microsoft trying to prevent publishing benchmarks), or to stop their competition getting a foothold in the market.

          The latter part is in fact why databases wer
      • >databases are composed of facts.

        I think that "composed" is the key word here.

        The data in the database may be entirly factual. however
        the composition of it is not factual. Somone went to
        a lot of effort (or perhaps just a small amount of effort) to collate and create the database. They
        may deserve some form of protection of this
        investment. After all if the data in the DB was derived
        from the public domain then you can compile your
        own DB from the original data. This should not give
        you the right to just cop
        • So then in your model, the copier of a database can reuse a database as long as he changes it? So, if I then added the word Mr or Ms. in front of every entry in the phone book, I have in effect created a new database, and one that is now protected for me?
          The issue is that a database of 5 listings on your brochure is readable with one's eyes, and needs no NOVEL software (Copyrightable) to interface with it. These supposed database we are talking about are huge and require coding and software that is in itsel
    • "Just because it's on a computer is no reason to get stupid about how law applies."

      Ah, but what if you were already stupid to begin with?

      KFG

  • Don't you dare comment! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Michael's a Jerk! ( 668185 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @04:11AM (#6886226) Homepage Journal
    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!
  • 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. >:)
  • 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)

    • Re:this is a bit silly (Score:2, Informative)

      by Ulven ( 679148 )

      Read this [hamiltons-...tors.co.uk] for an overview of the database protection act in the UK. There are also a few case studies of when the act was invoked.

      The interesting and slightly worrying part is that even if the data is available to the public online, either in part or in full, it is still protected.

      The judge rejected these arguments, ruling that to extract merely meant to transfer to another medium and dismissing as irrelevant the availability of the data via the BHB web site. (My emphasis)

    • other, that is, than a general dislike and/or misunderstanding of copyright law

      Well, Bob, I am not a lawyer, but I don't really see how this has anything to do with copyright.

      First, the database information which is being discussed in the article, is assumed to be in the public domain. Laws, for example, pulished by the EU Parliament are not protected by copyright and may freely be copied and distributed by anyone.

      The issue, as I understand it, is that if someone takes the time and trouble to publish

      • You say you "do not see how this can be done". Well, it has been done.

        Database rights in the EU are effectively a subset of copyright. Created the same way (i.e. automatically). Breached in the same way (i.e. by copying). Enforced in the same way.

  • "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

  • In Related news... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by segment ( 695309 ) <sil@po l i t r i x .org> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @05:55AM (#6886362) Homepage Journal

    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
    • From the article:

      Now ChoicePoint's database is no longer available to help U.S. authorities. An Associated Press report detailing the U.S. government's access to the data triggered a public outcry in Mexico and other Latin American countries from which Choic[e]Point had obtained citizens' private records.

      Good for the Mexicans. And, while Choicepoint is, in my view, essentially pure evil (profiting off of private information), good for them as they cut of the U.S. government's access. Bad for the U.S.

    • Of course, you have to be slightly crazy to see him....

      Now who is going to get Project Mayhem underway to stop these bastards? Rubber band a few Senators perhaps?

  • The European version (Score:4, Informative)

    by infolib ( 618234 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @07:08AM (#6886482)
    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.

  • 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 par

  • 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 p

  • IANAL, but (Score:4, Funny)

    by spektr ( 466069 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @08:18AM (#6886597)
    "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...
  • 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? Ma

    • Oh for ... all right, fine. If they have the same rights as everyone else, let them enforce those rights under the same laws! I am so God damned sick and tired of every pissant little group or corporation whining about how it, and only it, needs special legal protection from the Internet because {insert stupid fradulent claim here}. That's pure baloney, my friend. People and/or corporations do not need protection from the Internet. The Internet needs protection from them. And as we allow these selfish
    • The simple answer: it wasn't copyrighted. You could have done it without permission.
      • Yes, it IS copyrighted material. printed documents, especially magazines, are copyrighted materials unless they specificly state that you can re-distribute the data.

        i print up dozens of magazines that have data as such (we recently printed a manufactuers directory for a medical product magazine) and all of them specificly say that reproduction of that material is NOT legal without permission of the publisher.

        I still dont see why because it is online it should be exempt from the copyright laws.
        • Simple lists of facts are not copyrightable. If you're reproducing the pages themeselves, then you're in violation. If you're data mining product numbers & prices, then you aren't. That's what this whole argument is about, of course.

          They can say whatever they want on the flier, of course - reproduction certainly is legal in certain circumstances, regardless of whether its copyrighted or not.

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • "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... (Score:5, Informative)

    by e6003 ( 552415 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @09:55AM (#6886925) Homepage
    ...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...
  • 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
  • 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 t

  • All your database are belong to us.
  • 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?

    • 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.

      [snip]

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

      Perhaps this sentiment springs from the fact that most Slashdotters are also pro-piracy -- they hate to pay a reasonable amount for information or intellectual property (IP), even if such payment is the best means of ensuring the continued production

  • 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 havi
  • 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 tota
  • 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 in

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close