Who Owns The Facts? 490
windowpain writes "With all of the furor over the Patriot Act a truly scary bill that expands the rights of corporations at the expense of individuals was quietly introduced into congress in October. In Feist v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. the Supreme Court ruled that a mere collection of facts can't be copyrighted. But H.R. 3261, the Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act neatly sidesteps the copyright question and allows treble damages to be levied against anyone who uses information that's in a database that a corporation asserts it owns. This is an issue that crosses the political spectrum. Left-leaning organizations like the American Library Association oppose the bill and so do arch-conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly, who wrote an impassioned column exposing the bill for what it is the week after it was introduced."
Who owns the facts? (Score:4, Interesting)
[T]he Supreme Court ruled that a mere collection of facts can't be copyrighted.
Would the Linux people, then, be able to assert that their C code is merely programmable facts which generates certain (MD5|MD4|SHA1|etc) hashes? Chew on that one, SCO.
In that case (Score:4, Insightful)
If it goes one way, it can go the other in this situation.
Re:In that case (Score:3, Insightful)
Conversely, some company can come in and take your source, change it, use it in a commercial product and use this doctorine to justify not releasing the code.
Be careful what you wish for (to OP).
Re:In that case (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the contents of your post, I see you are aware that if we were to just release software into the public domain, modifications could then legally become propietary. So instead we it release under the GPL which prevents that from happening. But if there was no legal basis for restricting software - if all software was pubic domain, then there would be no need for the GPL. Copyleft is only necisarry because of the existence of copyright.
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
If software was not copyrighted, the world of software development would be free to take and use any code they wanted from anywhere, at any time, and do anything with it they pleased.
This would lead to the distribution of much of what is now "free" software, but in compiled form, sold only after being compiled with a compiler which would completely obfuscate the resulting executable making it exceedingly hard to reverse engineer/decompile the code.
Essentially, we would live in a world where the highest paid engineers were those who know how to obfuscate well. "Free" software wouldn't gain anything, and indeed may be eclipsed by closed source versions of software which have proprietary modifications to make them more attractive. Unlike todays situation where closed source companies cannot make effective business use of GPLd (or similar) code, we would enter into an era of unparalleled code theft and plagiarism. Legal, of course.
What I think the FSF wants to get to, is a point where copyright *does not apply* to software, and in addition, it becomes a legal requirement to distribute copies of source code with all software.
In return for the legal protection of copyright, developers should have to distribute their source code - this I do not argue with at all - but copyright (or copyleft) itself will still be required to keep free software free.
Note, that I am primarily a closed source user, but would prefer copyrighted software with mandated source code distribution.
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:5, Informative)
(1) PROTECTION NOT EXTENDED- Subject to paragraph (2), protection under section 3 shall not extend to computer programs, including any computer program used in the manufacture, production, operation, or maintenance of a database, or to any element of a computer program necessary to its operation.
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:5, Interesting)
RTFA (Score:2)
SEC. 5. EXCLUSIONS.
(stuff deleted)
(b) COMPUTER PROGRAMS-
(1) PROTECTION NOT EXTENDED- Subject to paragraph (2), protection under section 3 shall not extend to computer programs, including any computer program used in the manufacture, production, operation, or maintenance of a database, or to any element of a computer program necessary to its operation.
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:5, Informative)
C code is no more a set of facts than poetry is a set of facts. C does more than generate hashes, for one thing (at least the Linux code does more than that, else there'd be a lot of coders who've wasted a lot of time). Code is a set of instructions, which are together part of a process. It's creative, in the sense that you put together programs in a language the same way a writer puts together a book. A collection of, say, reserved names in Java may be merely a collection of facts; an original creation is not. It's also inventive, in the patentable sense (`look-and-feel' patents, of course, raise some big controversy). But it's not simply a collection of facts.
Check for yourself (Score:3, Funny)
{
print "True!\n";
}
else
{
print "False!\n";
}
I'm guessing... (Score:4, Funny)
Question.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Quick question: does it have to be a corporation owning the database, or can it be a private individual?
Re:Question.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Question.... (Score:3, Insightful)
(1) the database was generated, gathered, or maintained through a substantial expenditure of financial resources or time;
...then you might have a case. This is meant to protect big business.
Re:Question.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Question.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Quick question: does it have to be a corporation owning the database, or can it be a private individual?
Why worry about it? If you feel strongly enough about this, and want to illustrate your point, incorporation is well within the means of the "private individual."
Re:Question.... (Score:2)
The bill is bad enough as it stands. Nothing is gained by using loaded and misleading language to describe it.
my db (Score:5, Funny)
There we go.
Oooo... I'm breaking the law. (Score:2)
DontLetCongressSee
(object,
property)
SE
object,
property
FROM
facts;
Re:my db (Score:5, Funny)
To this day, all countries utilizing airborne vehicles flying in excess of 20,000 feet must pay royalties to Norway for the commercial use of their property.
Re:my db (Score:3, Funny)
Since the most recent surveys of Mount Everest place its altitude at 29,035 feet (8850 metres), the Nepalese have applied for an exemption from this policy for Sherpas working commercially below 30,000 feet.
Negotiations are ongoing. There is no word yet on the legal status of climbers who become inadvertantly airborne while still above the 20,000 f
What's onerous? (Score:2, Informative)
(a) LIABILITY- Any person who makes available in commerce to others a quantitatively substantial part of the information in a database generated, gathered, or maintained by another person, knowing that such making available in commerce is without the authorization of that person (including a successor in interest) or that person's licensee, when acting within the scope of its license, shall be liable for the remedies set forth in section 7 if--
(1) the database was generated, gathered, or mai
Re:What's onerous? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they can successfuly claim the publication of their price lists ("facts" in anyone's book) is somehow part of a " database (that) was generated, gathered, or maintained through a substantial expenditure of financial resources or time;" it'll just be more ammunition for them to keep simple facts "secret."
Of course, considering how much influence large corporations have over the legislature in protecting their interests at the expense of the Public Good, is a bill like this any real surprise?
From Permitted Acts (Score:2, Informative)
So presenting the data via a reference to the original data is still allowed.
Re:What's onerous? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well then Webster owns the world already then (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad guys (greedy corps and stupid politians) they beat you too it!
Hasavoosavah?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hasavoosavah?!?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's taking us nowhere. All ideas are built on previous ideas and the reason they are built at all is to get ahead. When a small group owns the latest ideas then (a) no-one else can build on them for their own gain and (b) the owning group has no incentive to.
There is no moral justification for granting exclusive ownership to someone - it implies that they alone were responsible for the idea rather than it being a product of every idea and event preceding it and that it wouldn't have been reached by others for the same reason.
Try this [slashdot.org] to hear it put better.
Who's really looses out here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. It limits the rights of everyone, period. Why do people so consistently miss the fact that less government involvement neatly solves problems like these?
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2, Insightful)
For the same reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, and I realize I'm just guessing wildly here, it could be that the stated "fact" is often disguised as an opinion, as in the parent post, thus making it easily missed.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Laws like this are pathetic, and should be axed before they even get on the books. My personal policy is that if you are voting, look up who votes for laws of this and DON'T support them. This is the ONLY way that we Americans will be able to maintain a reasonably free society--by removing those politicians who repeatedly support government intervention in areas that don't need it (which by the way is the vast majority of our lives).
I will probably vote Libertarian in the next election. The only thing that turns me off is the Libertarian polits whose main platform is the legalization of marijuana as a recreational drug. This platform, although popular in certain subcultures, scares the daylights out of so many people that it will never be a winning platform.
Personally, I would rather see an emphasis placed on deregulation of many things, lowered (or eliminated) taxes, and increased fiscal responsibility. This of course means reducing and
As for ownership of data, it is my personal opinion that ANY data belongs to the person or entity which it describes. Therefore, if a company has data which describes me, I should be considered the sole OWNER, and they are permitted to use such data only insofar as I deem it permissable.
This gets tricky, such as in the case of surveys, but essentially, if data is not traceable to a particular individual (as should be the case in surveys), then it belongs to the entity that generated such data--until such a time as they make it public. Once data is aired to the public as a fact (as in a news report, or whatnot), it should now be considered public domain, and freely usable by any who are interested.
This does not mean that one should not cite sources, or that we should be able to access any database, but that we should have the opportunity to use information that is available.
(As a note, I just took a Loritab and a Skelaxin(?sp), so if this doesn't make any sense or is totally crazy, just ignore me--it's the medicine talking.)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it's offtopic (mods, hammer away), but SO MANY PEOPLE smoke marijuana (and so many people use other drugs (many illegal) too), that it really ought not be a losing platform. The liberals are already for decriminalization, mostly; the conservatives ought to give it whirl based on the tax savings alone.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it does not. In this case if there was no govt regulation then all data collected would be de-facto property of whoever collected it. In a world without govt you would have absolutely zero control over what a corporation could do with "your" information. The best that you could possibly hope for would be to try and sue the corporation which would go nowhere because the corporation would not be breaking any laws.
fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:4, Interesting)
Illegal search and seizure, May 8, 2005: Homeland Defense.
Right to Private Property, September 19, 2006: Corporate Bottom Lines.
Freedom of Speech, December 2, 2003: This post.
Too late (Score:2)
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:4, Interesting)
The FBI can also subpoena a vast array of private information about you by merely writing a letter to themselves branding you as a terrorism suspect. They no longer need the involvement of a judge so they have shredded the constitutional checks and balances the judiciary held on the executive branch.
I really wish the Republican party and conservatives would stop spouting rhetoric about how they are the party against big government. They seem to only want to limit government intrusion in to money making by wealthy party members and to end social programs that benefit the poor. Though, as the recent Medicare bill shows they are now even in favor of big government social programs as long as most of the money is going in to the pockets of their rich friends.
When it comes to the military, spying, dirty tricks, law enforecemnt and shredding the rights of individuals the Republican party really loves the biggest, most malignant government imaginable. Of course the Democrats were bulldozed in to going along with the Patriot act so are almost equally to blame.
Re:fuckedcompany? no.. fuckedrepublic (Score:4, Informative)
The sneak and peak search provision of the Patriot Act is widely regarded as one of its most detestable parts and will be the first thing called in to question if Congress ever gets around to revisiting the Patriot Act, something I doubt they will find the backbone to do anytime soon.
Did you actually read the link in my post to the University of Georgia. I'll quote since you must not have read it before you started ranting:
Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act not only specifically grants the federal judiciary power to issue sneak and peek warrants, but also, by allowing their use for every federal crime and by placing no meaningful limits on their issuance, encourages their issuance. It may be expected that as time passes the use of such warrants will become the rule rather than the exception in federal court, and that when a conventional search warrant is issued it will almost always have been preceded by a sneak and peek warrant.
Nearly two decades ago a prescient federal judge, in a dissenting opinion, warned that sneak and peek search warrants "constitute
Joe Friday (Score:2)
I don't get it... (Score:3, Funny)
= 9J =
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
Loophole (Score:2, Informative)
PHP db hook and you're home free
Connections (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Connections (Score:2)
Connections is still on Discovery Science (Score:2)
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
99% of bills introduced into Congress are quiet ( unless you watch C-SPAN. No where in the Constitution does it say that a loud proclamation of all bills must be made.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2)
I don't see what's wrong here (Score:5, Informative)
A few quick notes:
I won't annoy all of you by requote the whole text of the bill (which I highly recommend you read before flaming). However, from my reading of it, all it seems to prohibit is for someone to make available significant amounts of a commercial database for their own profit. Basically, you can't spider Lexis-Nexis or the like and sell the info, but you CAN independently collect that data from direct sources and compete with them.
If I'm missing something here, PLEASE tell me. Again, read the bill first though, before you spew fire.
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:3, Interesting)
If I know them before hand, I can't tell anyone unless I am a news organization.
Why should I be prevented from telling anyone? Aren't I just saying facts?
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:2)
If you ARE ripping this data directly out of their database, then yes, you are liable. But then again, they've spent time and money preparing such a list of prices, so they have a case about not wanting people to republish them in bulk.
However, note the provision allowing for hyperlinking (and specifically, deep-linking). If you were to give a lis
Open them eyes... (Score:5, Interesting)
Last time I checked (few months ago) the codes still weren't published even though he won.
I've tried getting the codes myself, for my state. They're over $70. Think about it for a minute. These aren't just a collection of facts. These codes are the LAW. So I have to pay a private company to find out what the law is.
What did the guy do? After searching through various retail locations and coming up empty, he decided to publish THE LAW of building codes for the particular town he was interested in, and he was taken to court by a private company.
I thought I could search my state/city's web site to find out what the codes were, but thanks to the private company, virtually all states/cities/towns in the US "adopt by reference", and don't publish what the actual codes are, therefore you are forced to pay if you want to know what the law is.
To make it simple, codes are necessarily published in a certain order, in a certain format. Changing the format wouldn't work. So if the private company publishes a book of codes (they do), you can't copy the book and put it on a web site, according to the proposed law. If the company also publishes the codes online, you can't do the same. So you'll go to their site you say? They don't publish all the codes. And the ones they do publish, you have to go through multiple directory trees, or they make it exceedingly and annoyingly difficult to get more than one or two sub sections at a time. If you are familiar with building codes, this is a non-starter.
The other option is 1. going to the library (it's a reference book, you can't take it out. or 2. going to the county clerk (a major pita in most cities, and it's a reference, you can't take it home).
Can you see it now?
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're aggravated because your city/county/state has building codes (and other laws) and they're being a bunch of slack bastards about publishing them in an easily used format. There are dead tree versions and unhelpful govt workers, but these are annoying to deal with.
Now, some other company was started by someone who also noticed what a pain in the ass it was to deal with these codes and figured people might pay to be able to access them in
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are misunderstanding, and that's what's annoying. The government entities, whether they are state, city, or town, are NOT publishing period. They have INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE the codes (laws), and they have purchased for the clerk (because the clerk is in the court) one copy for the clerk's use. Because everything that is in the clerk's office that is a law can be read by the public during certain business hours, the public can access if the clerk is not busy, if it isn't a lunch hour, if you can take time off during a work day...
These are laws. Not a collection of facts like baseball statistics.
Now, some other company was started by someone who also noticed what a pain in the ass it was to deal with these codes and figured people might pay to be able to access them in an easy-to-use format. Problem is that they charge more than you want to pay.
More wrong. One organization put together the code. They make their money by selling the code to the trades that are forced to buy from their monopoly if they want to work. Forced to buy the law. Are you understanding this? Forced to buy the law. Not baseball statistics.
Therefore, unless I'm reading you wrong, you're mad that you can't take their data and republish it. Since that's all that I can see is prohibited; you're still free to hassle that clerk until they cough up the codes and then publish THAT. In fact, the only way you can get in trouble is if you republish a lot of this data and can't prove you got it from anything else except the commercial database.
Even more wrong.
The only place you can get it is from buying their book, from the clerk (you can't take it out, you can't sit there and hand copy, you can't bring your own photocopy machine to the clerk's office) or from the library (sit there and copy, what by hand? Copy machine? Who's, yours? Theirs? How much paper/toner will they allow you? How much time?)
And those are the three places, according to facts as came out in the court cases over the building codes case. Regardless of whether, and as it was listed in the case, you collected the code (LAWS) from buying the book, from the clerk, from the library, YOU STILL CAN'T PUBLISH YOUR OWN BOOK, OR ON THE INTERNET. WHETHER FOR PROFIT, OR NOT. The guy won the case, now the National Electrical organization, and joined by the Building Code organization are pushing this bill to overturn that case.
So, while I can sympathize with your dilemna, you might direct your anger more towards the useless govt workers who aren't publishing the codes in a useful manner than the DB company that spent a lot of time trying to make them more usable (if more costly).
As stated earlier, it isn't a government problem of not publishing codes in a useful manner. And it isn't a database company spending a lot of time trying to make them more usable. It is a private organization that is putting together, and publishing the codes (LAWS) themselves, and restricting anyone else from listing those codes (LAWS), and threatening/taking to court anyone who tries (the National Electrical Code Assocation was the case, the Building Codes association joined, and the National Fire Protection Association has threatened others).
So get your facts straight.
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong here is that it makes it easy for big corporations with deep pockets to keep the little guy from being a nuisance/competitor.
Who can afford to litigate against a Fortune 500 company whether his database is or is not misappropriated from theirs? How can you ever establish that you independently generated your database?
When ownership of fact can be the basis of a civil suit, the individual is shut out. Like software patents, the big corporations will own portfolios of databases that they will cross-license to each other while they collectively collude to keep everyone else out.
When I see that the phone company and building-code associations are going out of business because bad guys have misappropriated their "databases," it may be time for such a law. Until then, what's the rush?
I wish legislators would include at least a token discussion on exactly what the problem for which they're providing a "solution." Whose databases are currently being misappropriated?
what's wrong here (Score:4, Insightful)
It's much more than that. Often, "big corporations" aren't the licensees of the data; smaller entities are (such as is the case in many state data distribution contracts, e.g. DMV databases which are auctioned off like radio spectrum in an irresponsible manner). Subsequently, the "evil big corporation" matter is a red herring. We need to keep the eye on the fundamental - the government's aspiration to implement a Stationer's register [bartleby.com] system that requires the authority of the crown in order to access public information. Imagine the absolute power politicians will have in defining who can and cannot see public records.
Per the original post's critique link:
H.R. 3261
This is much more than a theft of public information (again, mirroring the FCC's approach to spectrum auctions). Much of this government information is necessary for ensuring compliance. Imagine, for instance, if driving laws were maintained in a Federal database, but access to that database required a $25,000 annual fee.
Failure to have access to this database would result in recurring noncompliance; e.g. making normal citizens recurring lawbreakers.
Certainly many politicians aspire to extend a political system that ensures all citizens are lawbreakers and subsequently dependents upon the system. Concealing public information which is necessary for legal compliance is a terrible move towards tyranny.
H.R. 3261 would allow federal courts to impose stiff penalties if someone uses information from a database that a corporation claims to own.
Almost sounds like it was written by Kafka:
"I'm sorry sir, but to divulge what crime you have been charged with, absent proper licensing and permitting of your access to the Federal crimes database, would be a crime of itself. Certainly you wouldn't wish to compound matters, would you?"
Incidentally, I see that Rep. Billy Tauzin [house.gov], known as the loyal Representative from BellSouth [newnetworks.com], is a cosponsor of this bill. Good rule of thumb: if Billy's involved, it's probably not on the level.
*scoove*
What about "hobby" data collections? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this mean that some big corporation can come along and claim that all of such a site's data is in their private corporate database, and is thus in violation? In most cases, the hobbyists will have had no access to the
You folks are barking up the wrong tree (Score:5, Insightful)
Who can afford to litigate against a Fortune 500 company whether his database is or is not misappropriated from theirs?"
What follows is a general rant about "the system":
Don't blame the law (unless you think it's wrong in and of itself, of course).
Don't blame the lawyers, they're just mouthpeices: everyone (even the bad guys) needs a voice in a civil society.
Blame the elected representatives who pass bad legislation which screws up the system.
Blame the elected judges who hear ridiculous cases and who let bad legislation pass which screws up the system.
Blame the citizens making up juries who make some of these stupid court decisions.
See where this is going?
Government (and economics, for that matter) is just a way of controlling power. No matter which party you belong to, it doesn't get any more basic than this.
If you don't play the game, the folks who make the rules (your fellow citizens) will fuck you over. Democracy, capitalism, whatever -- NONE of it works if the people sit around and let a minority run the show.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that less government is a good thing: I feel that sane courts and capitalism are more effective than legislature (I trust my vote more among 200,000 corporations than than I do 2,000 politicians). I think less government could solve problems like this, but it will never happen unless lots of folks like me vote.
The same goes for you and what you believe. Welcome to the rest of your life. Put your hands on the wheel.
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:5, Interesting)
Hydrogen: Atomic weight 1.00794
Helium: Atomic weight 4.002602
Lithium: Atomic weight 6.941
Beryllium: Atomic weight 9.012182
Boron: Atomic weight 10.811
Carbon: Atomic weight 12.0107
Nitrogen: Atomic weight 14.0067
Oxygen: Atomic weight 15.9994
I spent nearly an hour researching sources for all one hundred and thirteen items in that database! Do you know it took me almost eight minutes to find a source for the atomic weight for Darmstadtium alone? Element 110, Darmstadtium, atomic weight 281!
I invested TIME and WORK into building my database! I'm trying to SELL these facts! I have a RIGHT to make money selling these facts! Now, with this law I can finally sue anyone who tries to infringe my god-given right to make a profit! These are MY facts! I OWN them! Anyone who copies these facts is a THIEF! That's right! Bob over there STOLE the FACT that Oxygen has an atomic weight of 15.9994! He STOLE it from me!
And don't you dare try to STEAL the speed of light out of my database! I own that too, and I'm damn well going to make money selling it!
[/sarcasm]
Note that the mere fact that I attempt to sell this info automatically qualifies it as a "commercial database". I could have a database with the facts that 'M' is the 13th letter of the alphabet and 'N' is the 14th letter. That's a "commercial database" too, if I say it is.
The Supreme Court ruled that you cannot copyright facts, and with damn good reason. Congress is forbidden from granting copyright protection to databases of facts so they are making an end-run around the Supreme Court. They are inventing some new "right" out of thin air. A right to own facts. It's a dumb idea. You cannot "own" the speed of light. You cannot "own" the height of Mt. Everest. You cannot "own" the fact that Bob Miller lives at 8192 Binary Lane. You cannot "own" the fact that Bob Miller is 5-foot-4. You cannot "own" the fact that Bob Miller's phone number is (429)496-7296.
That last item - Bob Miller's phone number - is particularly signifigant. This whole issue started with a battle over the PHONE BOOK. The Supreme court ruled that the listings of people's phone numbers in the phone book can't be protected and can't be owned by the company publishing the phone book. This new law is an attempt to "fix" that problem. It grants the phone book publisher ownership over the fact that Bob Miller's phone number is (429)496-7296.
As for the exemptions you list, yeah, the law would devestating with out them. But it's not about what is permitted, it's about what is prohibited. The law prohibits the "misappropriation of facts". You can't "misappropriate" a fact.
-
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, I agree that laws should be written to be far less vague (as this one does indeed leave a lot of
Legislation so bad and so unpopular.. (Score:2, Funny)
I came up with this idea a couple of years ago... (Score:3, Funny)
I wanted to copyright my demographic information then charge company's to use it to send me junkmail. Now someone else is goign to own my info. I wonder if they would sell me, or license me, the right to use my info.
J
Re:I came up with this idea a couple of years ago. (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder if they would sell me, or license me, the right to use my info.
Probably not. I'm sure they'll happily license the right to use your info to a marketing company though.
Ma Bell has her hands in this one too (Score:4, Funny)
Yea! Thank God they thought of the poor telemarketers!
More "IP" landgrabbing... (Score:2)
Information wants to be free, but there's still big bucks to be made from plundering the commons and attempting to enforce more artificial scarcity.
--
Re:More "IP" landgrabbing... (Score:2)
Your post is nothing but pure speculation.
Re:More "IP" landgrabbing... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, we the people can always Incorporate! (Score:2)
GPL for Data (Score:2)
A previous article [slashdot.org] about how maptech obtains their map data prompted a reader [slashdot.org] to propose an opensource type map data clearing house with the data being submitted by volunteers. I am working on trying to create just such a thing and I am looking for some kind of protection for the data to keep what happened to CDDB by Gracenote [gracenote.com] from happening to it.
Now it sound
WTF? Something else is driving this (Score:2)
(B) EXCLUSIONS- The term database does not include any of the following:
(i) A work of authorship, other than a compilation or a collective work.
(ii) A collection of information that principally performs the function of addressing, routing, forwarding, transmitting, or storing digital online communications or receiving access to connections for digital communications, except t
Is this bill really so bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I am still concerned to some extent about this bill, as I read it the situation is not nearly as dire as the posting suggests. To begin with, the claim that the bill
is untrue. It imposes no liability on users of a database. It deals only with people who
Unless I have missed something, you can make use of any data you can get your hands on. What you can't do is distribute to others the whole database or substantial chunks of it. Furthermore, the owner of the database can't just claim to own it; it has the burden of showing that it generated the database through a substantial investment of money or time.
The bill is fairly restrictive. It exempts government databases, explicitly permits hyperlinking, and contains exceptions for news reporting and educational and research uses. Furthermore, the restriction only applies if the unauthorized redistribution "inflicts an injury", where this is defined as follows:
I'm not sure how this is to be interpreted, but it seems to me that it may permit derivative works insofar as they are not functionally equivalent to the original. In sum, I'm nervous about restrictions on databases too, but this bill seems to be pretty narrow. Its possible it prohibits things I wouldn't want to see prohibited, but it doesn't seem to be nearly as awful as suggested. I'd like to see a proper analysis of the intent and legal interpretation of this bill.
Re:Is this bill really so bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
For the first example consider public records. Yes another database provider may manually reconstruct the entire set of public records each government entitiy creates. What happens when the government entity then enters into contract with the database provider to submit an electronic dataset. For example check out MuniCode [municode.com]. I could go down to my local city hall and get an entire copy of the municipal codes and manually type them and post them. However, this places me at a severe disadvantage over MuniCode. In fact this bill could prevent government agencies from selling electronic data submissions to multiple vendors since once the first vendor receives the data he may claim copyright on the collection and sue the government agency.
For the second example, consider telephone directories. The local telephone provider has a nice monopoly on this data since they are the creator and maintainer of the data. Once they publish the "phone book" it becomes a database. The only way another company can compete to produce directories would be to manually contact each home, business, etc. and collect the information from them. It would be illegal to simply copy the text of the phone book, rearrange it and publish with added value. BTW, check the link in the editorial linked to in the
Incorporate! (Score:2, Funny)
In all seriousness... if you're not a corporation or affiliated with one, you might be in a bit of trouble as the current pro-business administration continues its legislative agendae.
Chris Inc. [slconsolidation.com]
Big friggin' deal (Score:2)
Bills get introduced all the time to do all kinds of shit. Every session of Congress, for example, some idiot introduces a bill to repeal the Second Amendment. Some other schmuck introduces one to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Neither of then go anywhere, neither will this one.
Of course, we'll see 3-4 dupes of this on /. before it's all over . . .
Re:Big friggin' deal (Score:2)
When was the last time Congress actually repealled a law? If this bad bill becomes a bad law, the only way to get rid of it will be through a court challenge? Who will spend thousands of dollars to fight for the right to copy factual databases?
Political activism is free! Judicial
"Corporation"? (Score:3, Insightful)
> a database that a corporation asserts it owns.
This legislation is certainly objectionable, but nothing in it singles out corporations.
well then... (Score:2)
then it will die...however, the authors had to know this,, so what they really want will be in a 'rewrite' of the bill.
Re:well then... (Score:3, Insightful)
Internal memos? Diebold (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds to me like the leaked diebold memos would have been a great chance for a smackdown lawsuit in this case...
Even better, how about if you are emailing something to yourself at home, maybe on a break. Even if your company didn't contractually claim exclusive rights to anything coming out of your head, if it was archived from corporate email then wouldn't this give them rights to it?
Just throwing around some basic doom+gloom, I'm sure the professionals (corporations) would be able to come around with some more advanced methods of screwing us over...
Exclusion for Independently Generated Info (Score:3, Insightful)
(a) INDEPENDENTLY GENERATED OR GATHERED INFORMATION- This Act shall not restrict any person from independently generating or gathering information obtained by means other than extracting it from a database generated, gathered, or maintained by another person and making that information available in commerce.
By way of example suppose...
CASE 1
The phone company in my town prints its DB of customers and phone numbers and sells that book. I buy a copy of that book and take it to kinkos and give it away for free. Should I be punished?
CASE 2
Same town and phone company, but this time I go to every person in my small town and ask what their phone number is, collect that info into my own book and give that book away... "INDEPENDENTLY GATHERED INFORMATION" Seems like I'm in the clear.
On the surface I'm OK with this, but at least one problem is that the book from case 1 may be indistinguishable from the book in case 2. Will burden of proof lie with me or them?
So who owns the Fact to end all facts? (Score:3, Funny)
Get a grip, people (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, but this law looks OK.
It looks, on its face, to be carefully crafted to keep people from taking large chunks of other people's databases and selling them as their own.
In effect, it gives copyright-like protection to formatting information into a database. It's the format, and the particular collection of the data that is owned, not the information itself.
You must to yield now. We have own all your databases.
basically (Score:3, Interesting)
a) they have money
b) they have money to get the best lawyers
c) they have money to drag a case on until you're broke.
that's another scary thought.
Been There, Done That, Must Fight (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think many of the comments truly understand just how much information is on a typical web site, both on the page and in the server, that would be subject to a reversal of FEIST.
In our case, to give an idea, we presented a "how to" for homeowners on repairing common appliances and when to call the professionals.
Consider this...there are only so many ways that you can say: "Replace the worn part."
That's what we were threatened over; C&D letters and responses flying around, and out of the midst of this, researching for an attorney on our side, I ran across FEIST and Shepardized it out.
We ran with it, pointing out the case, reinforcing the decision, and having the weight of a unanimous Supreme Court decision behind it.
We won. The other guys backed down. We passed the word to a few other web sites being similarly threatened, and the attornies ran like vampires in sunlight.
But this _simple_ of an example, where a common and expected phrase becomes part of a "database", shows how HR 3261 can be applied to us all if it should pass.
This bill needs to be stopped...not just for the threat to the internet, but to basic research, to common students trying to do term papers, to authors trying to write, to even repeating breaking news from a web site or the TV.
Re:Sigh... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
The free-market system depends on scarcity of information. You cannot profit from something that everyone has a right to. FreeSoftware companies are not an example of this. They profit from service (i.e. a collection of information services provided by said company to an customer.) or proprietary innovation (MS is an example of expanding public information).
Without resources you interests have no value to society in this context. The correlary is that only things that interest society get the most attention. That is why counting cow farts can only get supported by the government.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't.
The free-market system depends on scarcity of material.
That material may be 'intellectual property', or it may be physical goods.
It's perfetcly possible to have a free market without scarcity of information.
Re:Sigh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed it's required...
If price, quality, and history information isn't perfectly and universally available, it's not a free market.
So for example, trying to prevent the publishing of a shop's price list is an attempt to destroy a free market. People don't know enough to make a perfect choice, so the best supplier doesn't necessarily make the sales.
Re:Significant damages (Score:3, Informative)
Check the dictionary sometime, treble is a synonym for triple. Also, look at the law-specific lingo [cornell.edu].
Treble IS triple! HAH! (Score:3, Informative)
1. Triple: "treble reason for loving as well as working while it is day" (George Eliot).
2. Music. Relating to or having the highest part, voice, or range.
3. High-pitched; shrill.
Good god boy, one would almost think you ain't never been fishing! (If you actually haven't...well, I truly pity you. But anyway, a triple-hooked fishook is called a "treble hook".)
USA is still the best (Score:3, Interesting)
While many countries have strengths in a few areas, overall the US is still the strongest. For example, Hong Kong has some of th
Re:When I remember Poland... (Score:5, Interesting)
Except of really absolutely necessary laws, the only limitation was: Don't fight the system. At least, not from outside. Which means: You could join the party, climb the career ladder and once gaining significant power, help guiding the system towards something more 'accessible'. And that was often done. They stopped condemning rock music, instead they pursued engaging it on their side (see the Manaam band), they had to ballance giving as much freedom to people against becoming "too liberal" in eyes of Moscow, especially giving real show in "fighting the enemies of the system" - the oppression of the opposition news were often bloated purposedly, just to show "how faithful we are". The police was really effective, and while you had to carry your ID with yourself at all times and show it to the police on demand (often), nobody really minded that - "Thank you citizen, you are free" was what you always heard if you weren't a criminal.
What is really important, the laws were extremely liberal. Nobody even thought about banning homosexuality. Marriages? No, not really, but prison? What for? Real law. Pornography allowed 18+, sex - 16+. No fiction of "sex since 18, alcohol since 21". Soft drugs allowed in small amounts for personal use. Hard drugs illegal and mostly unknown. Besides, the youth had far more interesting stuff to do than to drug themselves, start gang wars, rob people. Ever heard about The Palace of Culture and Science, by name of Stalin? A big building in the centre of Warsaw, impressive for its times. A network of such institutions worked thorough the whole country. Purpose: clubs, for mostly every hobby you could ever think of. Computer labs, car models, plane models, chorus, radioelectronics, carpentry, aquariums, all kinds of sport sections, games, theatre, dance, a section for any good activity you could think of for your child, could be found there - and children loved it. Funded in great part by the state, well equipped workshops, decent instructors/trainers, place for every kid and teenager to spend their time in interesting and creative way.
And criminals were really looked down upon, because people knew these do what they do just because they are too lazy for a honest job. Not to get their bread. Because despite the fact I could eat bananas maybe once or twice a year, when they appeared at the shop, everyone could afford their living, food, nobody was homeless, nobody was without work. If you happened to be without work while able to work, you were quite suspect. So called Blue Bird (polish Niebieski Ptak, russian Sinaya Ptica), either you lived from some money your family abroad sent you, or you performed some illegal activity... unless you just asked the social support for help. It was substantial enough to provide living to anyone too lazy to work, not high-standard though. Besides, it paid to work really. Forget the money, they didn't mean really much. But privledges. Vacations in your firm's contracted or owned hotel (Black Sea? Yugoslavia? Romania?), discounts on multitude of services, "christmas gifts", coupons to buy poorly available goods, countless other profits other than financial. You didn't HAVE TO work. You were just pretty much encouraged to do so.
And one wonderful thing I miss really deeply: Honesty and trust. You could travel whole eastern europe by hitchikng. You could leave your tent out in the wild for whole days without fear somebody would steal anything. You could ask a perfect stranger in the country to let you sleep overnight at their place and they would greet you warmly. Of course the unwritten rule of "do not steal" applied only to private property. Public property was stolen at will, and that's one of several reasons why the system collapsed. And if you were an artist, writer or such, you just belonged to an association which would pay you a monthly salary for writing books, playing music etc, and then provided them to the public for funny money. A record (vinyl) for as much as a loaf of bread. A book for about the same.
Re:When I remember Poland... (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of Eastern Europe fell from inefficient communism into brutal capitalism because of all the money to be made (for the very few rich), when what they needed was the efficient socialism of, e.g., Sweden.
In Sweden, most people don't pay taxes, which are income based in two brackets -- the bottom bracket pays 0%, and the upper bracket, which begins at 10% above the mean wage earned amounts to a tax of 57% of the portion of income above that level. As you might imagine, Sweden's system compresses almost everyone into the middle class while still allowing for plenty of incentive. This has resulted in an economy that looks perfect from the perspective of a capitalist or communist nation, with ultra-low unemployment, inflation, national debt, poverty, and infant mortality, and ultra-high longevity, per-capita spending power, and literacy. They have a thriving economy at all sizes of business, from sole-proprietorships to multinationals (e.g., Ikea, Volvo, Ericsson.) Sweden frequently ranks as the #1 place in the world to live on aggregate quality-of-life rankings.
I don't understand why so many of the post-communist countries aren't following Sweden's lead.
Get your facts straight... (Score:4, Informative)
Living here is good, that is true, but it is not the utopia you make it out to be.
You are describing Sweden in the 70's, not in the 00's. (Being completely intact after WWII gave us a good head start...)
After a slight crisis in the 90's national debt is up, unemployment is up a bit, and we are over all more on par with other western european countries.
Re:Google (Score:4, Insightful)
This bill does not give ownership of the data to the database maintainer. It simply gives copyright protetion to the collective work.
Google could not clain ownership of any data on the Internet (other than its own). Google could claim copyright of the index and search results.
What Google could do is DMCA sites for posting Google link results. However, posting a URL to Google to get the same link results is explicitly permitted in the legislation.
Re:Why did you (Score:3, Interesting)
>see it if you posted it tomorrow morning.
Yes, the whole world lives in your time zone too. besides, do you only read news that is a few hours old??? To bad for you.