(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--
Interesting, and thanks for posting part of the text from the bill here. I wonder if this bill isn't being snuck through to give the likes of Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, etc., more ammunition in their once and future suits against folks such as fatwallet.com - particualy around this time of year. (Amungtst all the other "Corporate entitities" who'd love to see something like this)
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?
(c) HYPERLINKING- Nothing in this Act shall restrict the act of hyperlinking of one online location to another or the providing of a reference or pointer (including such reference or pointer in a directory or index) to a database.
So presenting the data via a reference to the original data is still allowed.
Interesting. There may be definitions provided elsewhere in the text, but if not, then any device used to reference external information would probably make your use of the information legal. Which means, if you decide to post the contents of Visa's mailing list, just be sure to include a footnote telling people where you got the information.
Seems to me that one would have to prove that the info presented was collected as a result of an unauthorized access to the database in question. Am I reading that right? If so, that makes sense to me. Legally. Morally (a whole 'nother issue), depending on the data itself, if the data "needs" air, one will just have to debate whether he/she is willing to pay the price of publishing it. That's the game.
Mostly sincerely, *cragen
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
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:From Permitted Acts (Score:2)
Re:From Permitted Acts (Score:1)
Re:From Permitted Acts (Score:1)
I'll just post this innocuous(sp?) link. [google.com]
Re:What's onerous? (Score:1)