Ok, I was all ready to go ballistic over this one, but after reading the text of the bill, I'm not really seeing the issue.
A few quick notes:
SEC. 4. PERMITTED ACTS.
(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.
(b) ACTS OF MAKING AVAILABLE IN COMMERCE BY NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS- The making available in commerce of a substantial part of a database by a nonprofit educational, scientific, and research institution, including an employee or agent of such institution acting within the scope of such employment or agency, for nonprofit educational, scientific, and research purposes shall not be prohibited by section 3 if the court determines that the making available in commerce of the information in the database is reasonable under the circumstances, taking into consideration the customary practices associated with such uses of such database by nonprofit educational, scientific, or research institutions and other factors that the court determines relevant.
(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.
(d) NEWS REPORTING- Nothing in this Act shall restrict any person from making available in commerce information for the primary purpose of news reporting, including news and sports gathering, dissemination, and comment, unless the information is time sensitive and has been gathered by a news reporting entity, and making available in commerce the information is part of a consistent pattern engaged in for the purpose of direct competition.
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.
Unless you're ripping these prices off of the store's own database, then you have no issue. If you somehow collect these prices independently, then go for it.
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
Your deep linking argument is flawed. Try deep linking to the National Electical Code.
And as for everything else, try strolling down your local Best Buy, then posting their prices on your website. Before you do, go talk to FatWallet [theinquirer.net] about BestBuy. Then go talk to the other corporations that aren't mentioned in this slashdot article, who are also pushing this to prevent price comparisons, something you would know if you
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday December 01, 2003 @11:11PM (#7605782)
You need to read the case about the building codes. I suggest you go to the guy's site where he tried to publish the building codes, and the case went all the way to SCOTUS.
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).
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
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.
No, the parent was aggravated because this new bill will make it AGAINST THE LAW to republish the law. Not someone's interpretation of the law, or their handy concordance of the law, or their nice formatted book of the law, but the law itself!
If it were against the law to re-publish (which implies a publication in the first place) then the company publishing the laws would also have to stop publishing...
I'm more in agreement that this is a case where someone is taking data compiled by someone else and publishing that, which should be against the law. If you can point to the section that says that no-one has the right to look up the text of the law and re-publish that... but to me it seemed the law was only about re-publishing someone elses dat
If it were against the law to re-publish (which implies a publication in the first place) then the company publishing the laws would also have to stop publishing...
Not if they owned the exclusive right to publish, ie copyright.
but to me it seemed the law was only about re-publishing someone elses database (like via a database scraper)
But it's not "like via a database scraper." It's more like "looking up the law at the library, copying it down, and putting it on a website."
Not if they owned the exclusive right to publish, ie copyright.
That's what I mean, I don't see how the law is saying that is disallowed - the law is the law and not copyrightable! Only a work based on the law would be copyrightable, in this case the database. You would always be able to go back to the original musty tomes that make up the law and publish that if you liked. You just can't copy the work of someone else who did so. I don't see where this new law is saying anything like there's a landrush
From "I'm feeling lucky" google search for 'building codes publish court case', or here [constructionweblinks.com].
(article dated last Feb 10.)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether building codes, once enacted into law, retain copyright protection. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the issue came after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that building codes, when enacted into law, could not be copyrighted.
skip skip skip
The Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. (SBCCI) is a non-profit organ
That does clear it up, though I think there are a number of vectors an angry citizen could use to force the matter and get free versons of the law that they could republish...
Still, very irksome that they would publish laws by reference instead of by value!
So, basically the local government is being lazy (or cost efficient...) by allowing someone else to develop the building codes that they should be developing.
In a weird way, it sort of works out: gov't spends taxpayers money developing building codes then tries to recoup it through ?taxes, OR allows someone else to develop the building codes and lets them worry about paying for development costs (in this case, by selling it to those who use it.) It's the ultimate user pays system.
Hell, why not subcontract out all lawmaking and have Congress meet once a year to update all the references to the corporate databases of laws? It would save taxpayer money in so many ways. Congress wouldn't need to employ so many staffers to get things done, the Federal Register could be reduced to a few pages telling people where to go to find the laws.
And anyone who actually wants to know the previously perfectly legal action they're about to take is now a felony, all they'll need to do is pay the La
The "you can't copy my database" law covers the content, not the context.
Thus it doesn't matter if you got your version of the building code from some musty tome - the fact that you are publishing the information in any form at all means that you've "stolen" the information that the database compiler "owns". This isn't a case of copyright infringement - it's not the presentation of the information, it's the information itself that is covered.
Think about that the next time you write your friend's name and
I don't think you have this one quite right - IF the codes were copyrighted (currently not possible per the 5th Circuit's en banc decision, but under SCOTUS review), then you would not be able to copy or distribute the codes w/o permission. The db law would not change anything in this imaginary world - it would be a straight forward application of copyright law.
The proposed db bill only comes into play if someone compiles non-copyrighted/non-exclusively licensed material into a convenient form. The db
Yes, you were reading the poster wrong. He couldn't republish the codes that the clerk gave him because those codes ARE the company's codes. It's true that "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." But the catch is that there is no other source for this information.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday December 01, 2003 @11:50PM (#7606051)
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.
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 then the problem isn't this bill, it's the fact that we have a corporation making laws and not the government. Perhaps that is what needs to be addressed.
Waitaminute. Your local government has (through laziness) a body of law with references to a commercial document. What prohibits your local government from publishing that law explicitly, should it choose to do so? Is the government body contractually obligated not to publish the law explicitly? It strikes me that the error is with the government body for referencing someone else's IP in a law, and not with the company which is gleefully charging for it. Could you not seek legal aid to get a court order to
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.
I didn't think you could do that - get a new law, or have an existing one altered, and then retroactively apply it to previously settled cases.
If true then, for example, if it became legal to smoke certain currently illegal substances, literally millions of people could flood the appeals courts to get prior convictions overturned or erased from the recor
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.
I didn't think you could do that - get a new law, or have an existing one altered, and then retroactively apply it to previously settled cases.
I think what was meant was "overturn the precedent set by that case", not the case itself.
I didn't think you could do that - get a new law, or have an existing one altered, and then retroactively apply it to previously settled cases.
They are creating an entirely new law, a new property right. The prior decision is based on copyright and does not apply here. So NOW you could be sued for violating the NEW law, although you are fine under the OLD law. See, you can publish now UNTIL the NEW law takes effect and then you'll be sued again, DIFFERENT LAWSUIT althogether and you are going to loose th
Breaking the law was not the appropriate way to handle the situation. Petitioning the state for a redress of grievances, was. However, nobody really cared enough. Yet another case where the abuses of government simply were not egregious enough to turn public opinion so sour as to take any action.
It happens in federal law as well. For example, the FDA has recognized several standards bodies such as the USP as being "blessed" in setting policy. If you follow these policies you won't run into trouble - if you don't you're on your own. And yet, if you want a copy of the USP, you have to pay an arm and a leg for it.
I'm all for private companies selling guides to complying with regulations. But no regulator should endorse a particular standards body without making the standards public information.
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?
it makes it easy for big corporations with deep pockets to keep the little guy from being a nuisance/competitor
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...would create a new federal property right in online and offline databases (collections of information), and give the federal courts power to police the use of information in databases.
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.
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.
Well this is something that that EVERYONE should read. But people are sooo complacent with the government always offering "to do good things for them". The gov never does anything good for anyone but themselves - if they are not forced by the public. We n
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), protection under this Act shall not extend to--
(A) a database generated, gathered, organized, or maintained by a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, or by an employee or agent of such an entity, acting within the scope of such employment or agency; or
(B) a database generated, gathered, or maintained by an entity pursuant to and to the exte
There are quite a lot of online sites that are built by hobbyists who collect some sort of information. For example, there are many sites dedicated to old movies, old recordings, old books of various types, etc. Most of these are collected by the hobbyists via a lot of detective work.
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
"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?"
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.
Blame the elected judges who hear ridiculous cases and who let bad legislation pass which screws up the system.
You are right about the rest but this is a big mistake. The federal judges are not elected - they are appointed. I blame the system here and the people who don't keep silent instead of screeming like mad to change thie. There is a huge hole in the US SYSTEM of government - the unelected, appointed for life, unacountable judges. Why the people don't know about it? Well it might be a fact from a p
Federal judges yes, sorry for the oversight. A lot of my focus here was on civil.
I can agree with some of the idea behind keeping these judges out of harms way. Moral and constitutional judgements, IMO the most important kind, need to be protected from negative influence (campaign funding, scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours games, etc.), but I do think that judges who aren't up for reelection every so often should be forced to be more accountable.
In theory the legislature is accountable to the people. The unpopular and unfair laws then would not need to be declared unconstitutional; they would be repealed. It is the popular but unfair laws that need to be found unconstitutional. Thus in the case that the legislature actually listens to the people, appointed judges are better.
"Blame the elected representatives who pass bad legislation which screws up the system".
And the central elected representative in this situation is Rep Coble, Republican in North Carolina, who introduced this measure. If you feel strongly enough about it, send money to the Democratic Party in North Carolina, with the express purpose of helping someone run against him. Choose the lesser evil, because you sure ain't gonna get to choose the greater good.
"send money to the Democratic Party in North Carolina, with the express purpose of helping someone run against him. Choose the lesser evil, because you sure ain't gonna get to choose the greater good."
I don't know that I like this game either. Folks who "choose the lesser evil" are voting, which is great, but they are letting their power as voters be quarantined. If everyone actually stood up and told their representative/party, "Look, do things this way or I go to another party", politicians might be i
I completely agree with dalcius here--not only on this issue, but in general. People bitch and complain all the time, but never DO anything. They expect that it is their right to have a fair and functioning government that someone else will maintain for them.
Anyway, back to reality...if people have power and we don't look over their shoulder, check on them, threaten them with loss of power (voting them out) then they will run with and abuse that power. Period. Regardless of party or their stupid rhetoric,
I guess the burden of proof would be on the accuser in this case. And there are precedents for what kind of proof is required - phonebooks and classifieds have fake entries (i.e. could not have come from anywhere else) which can easily be checked for to prove that the database / large portion was copied. If there is not proof like this (read: it was not implemented but the records match 100%, it was implemented, and everything except those records matches) the case would have little to stand on.
The burden of proof in any situation always rests on the person with the lesser resources. Resources, in this case, being defined as the combination of political influence, legal representation, and money.
None of this really matters unless you have a legal expense budget. Once again politicians have passed a bill which gives big corporations more ammunition in their pyramid scheme of greed.
I'm all for natural selection but I really don't want my taxpayer dollars to continue funding someone else's advancement at my expense. Then again, what can we do about it? Vote? *snicker* That was the first system to be rigged thousands of years ago.
I agree - this bill is much less scary than people seem to think. The basic idea is not "corporate ownership of the facts," its "protect investment in compiling the facts in a user-friendly form." In other words, you can't leach off someone else's work, but can create your own identical database.
Either way, the basic idea has been kicked around for about 20 years, but never gets a lot of support. Not much reason to expect a different result this time.
The permitted acts are vaguely described and will result in countless lawsuits. Particularly troubling is the phrase "if the court determines" in the middle of a sentence containing so many phrases it could be construed to mean just about anything.
Jeez I dont know if there are any sentences in Mein Kamph that long.
install Mozilla [mozilla.org], take a really, really deep breath, go to goatse [goatse.cx], hit stop before you are exposed to the full harshness of that gaping ass, right click on the little bit of the goatse man that has appeared, choose "Block Images From This Server", and voila! no more goatse man - even if you are redirected or click a misleading link and end up at the aforelinked domain.
Doesn't help with the increasingly popular mirroring of goatse, but it blocks enough dodgy goatse troll links to stuff his ass full of them.
Come off it, it's just a picture. I spent years avoiding it, then morbid curioity got the better of me and I sneaked a look. It really isn't as bad as all that. It's just an arsehole, that's all. We've all got one, for crying out loud!
Guess you overlooked Section 3:
(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--
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.
[laughing] I know a Bob Miller online. Who is big on misappropriating stuff. I don't know how tall he is, but he certainly seems to have short-man's complex. [runs off hooting madly]
Seriously, good points on just how ridiculous it can get. Also occurs to me that one use for "protection" from "misappropriating facts" could be to prevent anyone from reading the text of bills under consideration (such as this one). Uh-oh!!
No this is still a bad law, like the DCMA, which both give blanket rights to priviledged minority (thus taking away rights from the majority) and then provide a few exceptions to keep it from being completely unreasonable. One of the general problem with laws like this is that congress will never think of all the ways that people will misuse this law, and thus will never be able to come up with enough exceptions. If you were to create a law like this at all (which I don't think you should because even the '
If I'm missing something here, PLEASE tell me. Well, the main thing you are missing is that this law is intended to create and strengthen monopolies, which, while not beign evil per se, is usually considered harmful to the society.
Information is easily copiable, that's why basing the information economy around the premise that it is not is stupid. Artificially increasing transaction costs and trying to change the information exchange into a zero-sum game is bad, bad, bad!
I happen to agree with this guy to some extent. This law, contrary to what my fellow/.'ers seem to think, is not about the content of the database at all - it is simply about the database. I think the interpretation is you can't use the database as a free source of information and then resell the same information. It doesn't seem to say anything about using the information in other proudcts, et cetera.
Granted, I agree that laws should be written to be far less vague (as this one does indeed leave a lot of
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
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
Wow, you really are a lawyer! (Score:0)
Amazing!
You should go clerk for the Supremes!
Your deep linking argument is flawed. Try deep linking to the National Electical Code.
And as for everything else, try strolling down your local Best Buy, then posting their prices on your website. Before you do, go talk to FatWallet [theinquirer.net] about BestBuy. Then go talk to the other corporations that aren't mentioned in this slashdot article, who are also pushing this to prevent price comparisons, something you would know if you
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:1)
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:2)
No, the parent was aggravated because this new bill will make it AGAINST THE LAW to republish the law. Not someone's interpretation of the law, or their handy concordance of the law, or their nice formatted book of the law, but the law itself!
Not seeing it (Score:2)
I'm more in agreement that this is a case where someone is taking data compiled by someone else and publishing that, which should be against the law. If you can point to the section that says that no-one has the right to look up the text of the law and re-publish that... but to me it seemed the law was only about re-publishing someone elses dat
Re:Not seeing it (Score:2)
Not if they owned the exclusive right to publish, ie copyright.
But it's not "like via a database scraper." It's more like "looking up the law at the library, copying it down, and putting it on a website."
Re:Not seeing it (Score:2)
That's what I mean, I don't see how the law is saying that is disallowed - the law is the law and not copyrightable! Only a work based on the law would be copyrightable, in this case the database. You would always be able to go back to the original musty tomes that make up the law and publish that if you liked. You just can't copy the work of someone else who did so. I don't see where this new law is saying anything like there's a landrush
Re:Not seeing it (Score:2)
skip skip skip
Thanks (Score:1)
Still, very irksome that they would publish laws by reference instead of by value!
Re:Not seeing it (Score:1)
So, basically the local government is being lazy (or cost efficient...) by allowing someone else to develop the building codes that they should be developing.
In a weird way, it sort of works out: gov't spends taxpayers money developing building codes then tries to recoup it through ?taxes, OR allows someone else to develop the building codes and lets them worry about paying for development costs (in this case, by selling it to those who use it.) It's the ultimate user pays system.
Either way, someone is
Re:Not seeing it (Score:1)
And anyone who actually wants to know the previously perfectly legal action they're about to take is now a felony, all they'll need to do is pay the La
Re:Not seeing it (Score:1)
OH NO! It's the Slippery Slope Of DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
If you don't like it, get out there and vote vote vote!
Re:Not seeing it (Score:1)
Thus it doesn't matter if you got your version of the building code from some musty tome - the fact that you are publishing the information in any form at all means that you've "stolen" the information that the database compiler "owns". This isn't a case of copyright infringement - it's not the presentation of the information, it's the information itself that is covered.
Think about that the next time you write your friend's name and
Re:Not seeing it (Score:1)
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:1)
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:Open them eyes... (Score:2)
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:1, Interesting)
Your local government has (through laziness) a body of law with references to a commercial document. What prohibits your local government from publishing that law explicitly, should it choose to do so? Is the government body contractually obligated not to publish the law explicitly? It strikes me that the error is with the government body for referencing someone else's IP in a law, and not with the company which is gleefully charging for it.
Could you not seek legal aid to get a court order to
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:2)
I didn't think you could do that - get a new law, or have an existing one altered, and then retroactively apply it to previously settled cases.
If true then, for example, if it became legal to smoke certain currently illegal substances, literally millions of people could flood the appeals courts to get prior convictions overturned or erased from the recor
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:1)
I think what was meant was "overturn the precedent set by that case", not the case itself.
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:0)
They are creating an entirely new law, a new property right. The prior decision is based on copyright and does not apply here. So NOW you could be sued for violating the NEW law, although you are fine under the OLD law. See, you can publish now UNTIL the NEW law takes effect and then you'll be sued again, DIFFERENT LAWSUIT althogether and you are going to loose th
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:0)
Fight acronym abuse! This may be slashdot, but my god must we all speak in acronyms whenever possible!
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:2)
SCOTUS n. A highly sensitive patch of skin between the legs running from the genitalia, to the anus. Usage: Yo, Bitch! Lick my scotus.
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:1)
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:1)
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:0)
Re:Open them eyes... (Score:2)
I'm all for private companies selling guides to complying with regulations. But no regulator should endorse a particular standards body without making the standards public information.
O
Horse cum has a nice flat taste to it...not at all (Score:-1, Troll)
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*
Re:what's wrong here (Score:0)
Well this is something that that EVERYONE should read. But people are sooo complacent with the government always offering "to do good things for them". The gov never does anything good for anyone but themselves - if they are not forced by the public. We n
Re:what's wrong here -- RTFB (Score:2)
(B) a database generated, gathered, or maintained by an entity pursuant to and to the exte
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:You folks are barking up the wrong tree (Score:0)
You are right about the rest but this is a big mistake. The federal judges are not elected - they are appointed. I blame the system here and the people who don't keep silent instead of screeming like mad to change thie. There is a huge hole in the US SYSTEM of government - the unelected, appointed for life, unacountable judges. Why the people don't know about it? Well it might be a fact from a p
Re:You folks are barking up the wrong tree (Score:2)
I can agree with some of the idea behind keeping these judges out of harms way. Moral and constitutional judgements, IMO the most important kind, need to be protected from negative influence (campaign funding, scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours games, etc.), but I do think that judges who aren't up for reelection every so often should be forced to be more accountable.
Cheers
Re:You folks are barking up the wrong tree (Score:1)
Re:You folks are barking up the wrong tree (Score:2)
Cheers
Re:You folks are barking up the wrong tree (Score:1)
And the central elected representative in this situation is Rep Coble, Republican in North Carolina, who introduced this measure. If you feel strongly enough about it, send money to the Democratic Party in North Carolina, with the express purpose of helping someone run against him. Choose the lesser evil, because you sure ain't gonna get to choose the greater good.
Re:You folks are barking up the wrong tree (Score:2)
I don't know that I like this game either. Folks who "choose the lesser evil" are voting, which is great, but they are letting their power as voters be quarantined. If everyone actually stood up and told their representative/party, "Look, do things this way or I go to another party", politicians might be i
Re:You folks are barking up the wrong tree (Score:1)
Anyway, back to reality...if people have power and we don't look over their shoulder, check on them, threaten them with loss of power (voting them out) then they will run with and abuse that power. Period. Regardless of party or their stupid rhetoric,
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:0)
Because there is so much free phonebook info online, the phone companies are unable to sell web-based lookup. They'd like to do that. Thus this law.
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:2)
I'm not d
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:1)
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:1)
None of this really matters unless you have a legal expense budget. Once again politicians have passed a bill which gives big corporations more ammunition in their pyramid scheme of greed.
I'm all for natural selection but I really don't want my taxpayer dollars to continue funding someone else's advancement at my expense. Then again, what can we do about it? Vote? *snicker* That was the first system to be rigged thousands of years ago.
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:1)
Either way, the basic idea has been kicked around for about 20 years, but never gets a lot of support. Not much reason to expect a different result this time.
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:1)
Hyperlinking. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hyperlinking. (Score:1)
Re:Hyperlinking. (Score:0)
Doesn't help with the increasingly popular mirroring of goatse, but it blocks enough dodgy goatse troll links to stuff his ass full of them.
Re:Hyperlinking. (Score:0)
Re:Hyperlinking. (Score:0)
Re:Hyperlinking. (Score:1)
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:0)
(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 dat
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:2)
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:2)
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:2)
Seriously, good points on just how ridiculous it can get. Also occurs to me that one use for "protection" from "misappropriating facts" could be to prevent anyone from reading the text of bills under consideration (such as this one). Uh-oh!!
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:1)
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:2)
Re:I don't see what's wrong here (Score:2)
Well, the main thing you are missing is that this law is intended to create and strengthen monopolies, which, while not beign evil per se, is usually considered harmful to the society.
Information is easily copiable, that's why basing the information economy around the premise that it is not is stupid. Artificially increasing transaction costs and trying to change the information exchange into a zero-sum game is bad, bad, bad!
The fallacy that everyone makes he
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