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.
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.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
I don't see what's wrong here (Score:5, Informative)
A few quick notes:
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.