Congress Again Considering Database Protection Bill 128
An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo News is reporting on a new bill in Congress: '... a proposed bill that would prevent wholesale copying of school guides, news archives and other databases which do not enjoy copyright protection.'" The idea of database protection legislation has been kicking around for a long time. It's a bad idea, but it would make a lot of money for a few companies, so they keep pushing it, and no doubt will eventually get it passed.
Re:of course (Score:2, Interesting)
If the US Govt. were only interested in money and companies that generate a lot, what about donotcall.gov [donotcall.gov]?
surprised? (Score:1)
Surely you're not that gullible?
Re:of course (Score:5, Insightful)
because telemarketers calling during dinner became a problem that affected politicians directly. Problems that don't affect them directly and immediately are largely ignored (eg: microsoft's monopoly, the riaa as acting as a governmen-sanctioned vigilante, air pollution, inner-city crime, etc)
Re:of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's say (to pull some numbers out of the air) that DB copying is worth about $1 apiece to everyone in the country (total nearly $300M), but only $50M apiece to three companies to prevent it. $300M beats $150M, right?
Alas, those three companies might be willing to put up $1M each ($3M) in lobbying efforts, but only a tiny fraction of the general population would be willing to give up the 1 cent each to match that (besides which, overhead on trying to collect that would kill it).
Thus the political power tends to accrue to the special interests -- however diverse those special interests might be -- to the detriment of the general interest.
Re:CleanMoney (Score:2)
The trick is getting there from here in the current system. The Demopublicans and Republicrats would be thrilled at the prospect of eliminating all funding to those pesky vote-siphoning third parties by placing requirements, which happen to exclude everyone but themselves, on getting that public funding.
Speaking of election reform -- and this isn't likely to happen either -- I'd love to see "truth in advertising" laws applied to campaign ads.
Re:of course (Score:2, Insightful)
However, old articles are only of interest to people doing research. I can think of no single activity that advances civilization faster than research. Research leads to understanding, which leads to improvements on
Re:of course (Score:1)
But the Times doesn't charge for access to current articles. Sure, you've got to register to do so, but how many people bitch about even that?
Personally, I have no problem with them making a little on the side
Re:of course (Score:2, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with the NY Times. All of the Times' articles in their database are copyrighted; you can't reproduce them without consent.
This bill is intended to protect compilations of non-copyrightable material such as, oh say, court opinions and statutes, like Westlaw [westlaw.com] and LexisNexis [lexis.com].
Interestingly enough, Thompson-West--though they can't copyright the opinions themselves--claims copyright on the page numbers of their bound volumes of the Federal Reporter, Federal Supplement, and other series
Re:of course (Score:2)
Ask and ye shall recieve ... (Score:1)
Matthew Bender & Co., et al. v. West Publishing Co., decided at the 2nd Cir. in 1999 (Supreme Ct. denied cert.). This case was directly concerned with page references and West's claim of copyright over them. 2nd Circuit affirmed a rejection of this and the Supreme Ct., or scotus as some call them, declined to accept the appeal.
By way of explanation for those not in the legal field, page references are important because c
Re:of course (Score:1)
Re:of course (Score:5, Insightful)
This is laughable. From where did "database providers" get THEIR information? (By cutting and pasting someone else's database of course.)
Collecting publicly available information and presenting it in a useful format does require investment may provide users value - this what search engines like Google do - but it seems to me that it should be HOW this information is collected and presented - rather than the information itself which needs to be protected.
In essence copyright protects format, not content. Google can patent the way they collect information and copyright they way they present information, but they can't claim ownership to the information itself.
If protection is extended to content, it would seem to me to be an entirely new class of intellectual property which, at least in the US, would have no Constitutional basis and which the US Congress should have no authority to create.
Re:of course (Score:5, Insightful)
If you extrapolate your assertion to the logical conclusion, then what you are saying is that no-one put the information (represented as data) into the original database. Doesn't whoever put the data there in the first place deserve the rights over that information, assuming that it was not in the public domain, and that they wish to excercise said rights ?
Re:of course (Score:2)
And where did you get that idea from? The whole point is that the original data *is* in the public domain.
Re:of course (Score:1)
If you read my response before answering, you would have noticed that I was discussing publicly available information.
My point is that - if the information itself is public domain - that collecting this and presenting it on a website should not confer any rights of ownership to said information to database... which ap
Re:of course (Score:3, Interesting)
If I measure the speed of light first should I get some sort of rights over that information?
Copyright SPECIFICLY does not apply to facts. We are seeing a mad rush of people trying to expand copyright law in all sorts of ways, and virtually all of them lead to severly broken law. Original copyright was a carefully balanced and extremely limited beast. Copyright contains countless limitations and restrictions
The problem is... (Score:2)
What it seems that they're asking for is "Copyright" protection for all data, no matter WHERE it came from.
Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:1, Interesting)
This law would simply close a legal loophole that prevented the application of copyright law to databases composed of "facts"--which currently ca
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:5, Insightful)
But take a look at copyright. The idea behind copyright is that creative work is good for our culture. Ideally it would be free to anyone, but then there would be no incentive to create. Maybe artists would create anyway but rather than risk a bunch of starving painters and writers perhaps we can find a balance between what is good for society (free unencumbered access of work of cultural importance and the ability to make derivative work) and what is good for the artist. Copyright does this by giving the artist a limited amount of time to control the work. Culture doesn't suffer too much because the term is (or used to be ) limited and the artist can have a stab at making a living. It's a balance.
Now look at this case. The availability of data--court records for instance--is of fundamental importance to a free society. Striking a balance between the public and the collators of this information will be much trickier. It is much more critical than a novel or play and it diminishes in value to the public over time. While a Melville novel still holds cultural value, court records from Melville's time won't help us police our judicial system. Once someone has control over public information, they can charge what they like for it, withhold it, and prevent others from publishing it. That is a recipe for abuse and for very expensive information.
Also consider where the data comes from. A quote from the Yahoo article:
Backers of the measure say it would allow database providers to protect themselves against those who simply cut and paste their databases and resell them, or make them available for free online.
So they don't want somebody cutting a pasting. Where exactly did the providers get the information in the first place? They cut and paste it from somewhere else. And that is the point...they didn't create the information. It does not belong to them. It is public. And by giving them license to control it and prevent others from using it we lose something very valuable, of critical interest to everyone and give it to a handful so they may profit. It just isn't worth it.
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:3, Insightful)
As a farmer, I know how appaling theft of intellectual property can be. I selectively breed plants, spend much time and effort to produce healthy and unique plants, and then people can come along and take them, use them for their own purposes, profit from them and all without rewarding my efforts and ingenuity.
Society needs to realise that everything should be owned. Look at all those programs that use your presence in a crowd, say at a local sporting event, to profit. What do
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:2)
Well suppose I have gained insight into how to deal with abusive people, and I could tell you a trick to do that, which would change your life, but I've only got that insight and knowlege through extensive abuse at the hands of these people: does that mean I should have copyright on the information just because I gained that info at significant cost?
Here's a good example. If you're jumped at by a badly
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:1)
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:1, Interesting)
The answer is flamebait: either you like capitalism or you prefer a more socialist economy.
Since the US has aspects of both styles of economy built into it, the argument whether this service (the publication of databases of public domain data) should be provided by private industry or if it should be provided by the government.
Both sides of the argument have their strengths and weaknesses:
private industry is generally able to
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:1, Interesting)
If some organization wants to compile a database of public information and use it privately, fine.
If they want to allow people to access such a database under contract that prevents divulging or mass copying of that data, fine.
If they want to stick that same database on the internet where anyone can access it for free but then get all whiney when someone harvests it all and makes th
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine that you decide to make a database called "Names of Professional Writers of Manhattan and their Phone Numbers". You spend ten years of your life calling for and assembling submissions from writers and you finally make your list available for free on your Web site only to get sued the very next day by the company who makes the phone book... because your data is a subset of their copyrighted database of all Manhattan phone numbers, too large a subset to be covered by fair use.
You have to either pay them to publish the information that you found, or you have to take it offline.
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:2)
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:2, Interesting)
People can sue you for almost anything, it's all just paperwork. Yes, it has happened to me. No, it doesn't mean they'll win in court, and yes, you will have a chance to present your own case and evidence, but nine times out of ten if they're bigger and richer than you
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:2)
In the fucked-up world of American litigation, if someone wants to sue you then they will. This is not an argument against database rights.
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:3, Informative)
Your hypothetical database "Names of Professional Writers of Manhattan and their Phone Numbers" would not infringe upon the "Names and Phone Numbers of all Manhattan residents" database; but other people would not be allowed to redistributed your database without your permission.
Slippery slope. (Score:1)
I've used public records databases for twenty years some of which are now available through services like "KnowX." The various levels of government involved are only required to make certain information freely available, which can mean having a printout in a particular office. Most do not have web access from the source. Ev
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:2)
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:2)
1) The purpose of copyright law is to advance society in general.
2) Copyright holders receive advantages/compensation to encourage them to create more stuff.
3) Huge leap
4) Copyright law isn't supposed to advance the people who make create stuff.
So if copyright law is meant to advance society and its mechanism for doing that is to provide incentive to the creators, how would you imagine that copyright law is not meant to benifit creators? If you think it's an
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:2)
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:2)
We got DMCA because large companies needed to lock up their products even tighter to drive up income, not because lawmakers forgot something. It was lobbied into place with very large sums of money. Don't confuse the DMCA issues with copyright issues.
Re:Where's the "bad" part here? (Score:1)
Irregardless isn't a word. If it were a word, it would mean that one of the choices is held in regard; that is, the opposite of regardless.
HTH. HAND.
Who thinks they can write this bill? (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyright law is designed to protect CREATIVE work. Data is not creative work and no matter how hard it may be to compile said data, it should not result in you owning the data to the exclusion of everyone else. There is no way anyone in Washington will be able to write this bill in such a way that it doesn't screw everybody except for the lawyers duking out infringement cases based on it.
With the internet data has become so easy to find and compile that just about anyone can do it. A lot of people have figured out that this spells trouble for their business plan that was invented in the fifties and are now trying to make a land grab of sorts to protect their bottom line.
It's copyright we can't tell you. (Score:3, Interesting)
If they protect court room decisions and perhaps legislation text and parliamentary proceedings (hansards), then perhaps we could start claiming "ignorance" as an excuse.
Next thing you know the copyright people will be persecuting anyone who has an online copy of the material
Re:Who thinks they can write this bill? (Score:2)
You're Not a Citizen, You're a Consumer (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea is to keep a wall between the peasants and the nobles. If the peasants build ladders, make the wall higher. If they start digging tunnels, put in a moat. If trees overhang the wall, cut them down. And if the peasants ever figure out how to turn straw into gold and mint their own coins, you burn all their straw and cut off their hands.
more power for companies less pwr for people (Score:5, Interesting)
btw wtf did happen to FAIR USE??????
feel free to quote me..... IF YOU WANNA BE SUED =)
Re:more power for companies less pwr for people (Score:1)
The question I have is how does this benefit the average citizen?
After all, corporations are not entitled to representation in congresss and yet we constantly get legislation in their favor. Write your congressperson and leet them know you don't approve of legislation that only helps special interests.
M
I don't get it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:1)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
It would only help you if you cared about their trade secrets. Copyrighting is irrelevant; either the data is proprietary or it isn't.
Current law (Score:5, Insightful)
And why should big grabs of pre-existing data be protected?
Just because it's on a computer is no reason to get stupid about how law applies.
Re:Current law (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt the lobbies in favor of this sort of thing really believe that there is any sort of moral or ethical imperative to "protect" databases.
They're simply lobbying for this type of protection because they already have large databases and they think they might actually get it. If they do, they can pull an instant SCO and double or triple their revenue streams.
It's not about "this will be good for people", it's about "Heh... this is sort of slimy... but if we could pass it, our stock would double, so who cares!"
And for the politicians it's simply a matter of "This will piss off a few informed voters, but if the contributions are large enough, the $$$ will subsidize the buying of new voters to replace them with tons left over!"
Re:Current law (Score:2, Interesting)
If the database is composed of copyrightable information; say, a web-based database of modern poems by various authors, where permission has been granted by the authors to publish in that format, gratis, then the database would be copyrighted, and the copyright would belong to the authors of the pieces. If it followed the music industry model, then copyright would be assigned to the database creator.
Either way, the contents of the database are cop
Re:Current law (Score:2)
Re:Current law (Score:1)
The problem is, if a law is passed, it WILL be broad enough to allow other companies to twist it, and use to keep their customers in the dark about their product (remember the EULA clause from microsoft trying to prevent publishing benchmarks), or to stop their competition getting a foothold in the market.
The latter part is in fact why databases wer
Re:Current law (Score:1)
I think that "composed" is the key word here.
The data in the database may be entirly factual. however
the composition of it is not factual. Somone went to
a lot of effort (or perhaps just a small amount of effort) to collate and create the database. They
may deserve some form of protection of this
investment. After all if the data in the DB was derived
from the public domain then you can compile your
own DB from the original data. This should not give
you the right to just cop
Re:Current law (Score:1)
The issue is that a database of 5 listings on your brochure is readable with one's eyes, and needs no NOVEL software (Copyrightable) to interface with it. These supposed database we are talking about are huge and require coding and software that is in itsel
Re:Current law (Score:2)
Ah, but what if you were already stupid to begin with?
KFG
Don't you dare comment! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want to see any replies to this post. Get away from Slashdot and do something other than whine, or you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
Are you still here? Stop reading and start acting!
Re:Don't you dare comment! (Score:2)
KFG
Re:Don't you dare comment! (Score:1)
Re:Don't you dare comment! (Score:3)
Good sentiment, but the article states that this is a bill in the House of Representatives. Since the bill isn't u
You Insensitive Clod ... (Score:1)
Yes, it's true [parl.gc.ca].
And yet, somehow, I don't think this'll do much.. (Score:2)
Will this do much to stop the flow of information? Not for anyone who has an internet connection and the know-how to use it. >:)
this is a bit silly (Score:2)
Can any of the gloom-and-doom mongers point to any abuses of the law in Europe? (other, that is, than a general dislike and/or misunderstanding of copyright law)
Re:this is a bit silly (Score:2, Informative)
Read this [hamiltons-...tors.co.uk] for an overview of the database protection act in the UK. There are also a few case studies of when the act was invoked.
The interesting and slightly worrying part is that even if the data is available to the public online, either in part or in full, it is still protected.
Re:this is a bit silly (Score:2)
The William Hill case they mention seems perfectly just to me. Why should they be able to filch off someone else's work?
Re:this is a bit silly (Score:2)
copying someone else's work isn't.
the difference is clear to me morally and economically, and I don't see why it shouldn't be legally.
Re:this is a bit silly (Score:2)
Re:this is a bit silly (Score:1)
Well, Bob, I am not a lawyer, but I don't really see how this has anything to do with copyright.
First, the database information which is being discussed in the article, is assumed to be in the public domain. Laws, for example, pulished by the EU Parliament are not protected by copyright and may freely be copied and distributed by anyone.
The issue, as I understand it, is that if someone takes the time and trouble to publish
Re:this is a bit silly (Score:2)
Database rights in the EU are effectively a subset of copyright. Created the same way (i.e. automatically). Breached in the same way (i.e. by copying). Enforced in the same way.
THEY use the RIAA approach .... (Score:2)
It is like the allegation of the RIAA that if the artists cannot derive their income from these 5 major record companies, they might be less "willing" to create new music. B.S. Here too a similar wishy-washy justifcation is used to convince the state to become the
In Related news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny when I just read the following: Can you say propaganda? Asscroft and his cabals are using this instance to promote the USA PATRIOT ACT which is odd considering some of the things he proposes will affect businesses... But wait let's call the kettle black now shall we?Where's Tyler Durden when we need him most
Very interesting article (Score:1)
Now ChoicePoint's database is no longer available to help U.S. authorities. An Associated Press report detailing the U.S. government's access to the data triggered a public outcry in Mexico and other Latin American countries from which Choic[e]Point had obtained citizens' private records.
Good for the Mexicans. And, while Choicepoint is, in my view, essentially pure evil (profiting off of private information), good for them as they cut of the U.S. government's access. Bad for the U.S.
Tyler Durden is sitting here next to me.... (Score:2)
Now who is going to get Project Mayhem underway to stop these bastards? Rubber band a few Senators perhaps?
The European version (Score:4, Informative)
When reading the directive, remember that the only the articles really have force, not the recitals. A quick selection of quotes:
'database` shall mean a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means.
[...]
The copyright protection of databases provided for by this Directive shall not extend to their contents and shall be without prejudice to any rights subsisting in those contents themselves.
[...]
the author of a database shall have the exclusive right to carry out or to authorize:
(a) temporary or permanent reproduction[...]
(b) translation, adaptation[...]
(c) any form of distribution to the public[...]
Member States shall have the option of providing for limitations on the rights set out in Article 5 in the following cases:[...]
(d) where other exceptions to copyright which are traditionally authorized under national law are involved
[...]
SUI GENERIS RIGHT
Article 7
Object of protection
1. Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database.
[...]
The right provided for in Article 7 shall run from the date of completion of the making of the database. It shall expire fifteen years from the first of January of the year following the date of completion.
Depends on the wording (Score:1)
As others have pointed out, we have this in the EU (UK) already and it hasn't been egregiously abused. The reasoning behind has nothing to do with cut and paste - it's about protecting the effort the owner has made to collect/assemble that particular set of information. Database protection extends fifteen years, but even before that, anyone can market a similar collection - assuming they assembled it themselves.
So it depends on the wording of the US bill. The UK version is more akin to copyright - this par
How would Europeans solve this? (Score:1)
If you try to educate Joe Average about how bad this is for them, maybe close down a few (by which I mean a lot) websites and arrange for a protest to be held in front of the White House, maybe you can stop this Bill from passing?
At least you may be able to delay the voting for a month and buy more time to educate people and have them write to their p
IANAL, but (Score:4, Funny)
Do we really need a law that allows porno-sites to sue house-owners and lawyers when they download their online resources?
"If database producers know they have some law to fall back on when someone steals their database, they'll be much more willing to get that information out there for free,"
I see. The classic SCO-ploy.
"Violators could be shut down and be forced to pay triple the damages they incurred."
Judge: I'm disgusted. Shoot him down with quad damage!
Lawyer: You are transgressing the law!
Judge: I'm exaggerating. Frag this bastard.
-- On a second thought, let's not pass this - it's a silly law...
What is really wrong with this bill ? (Score:1, Informative)
lets take this example from the article.
"In one instance, a Minnesota magazine publisher had no legal recourse when its entire directory of local schools was copied and redistributed. In other cases, pornographic Web site operators have copied real-estate listings and lawyers' directories to lure unwitting visitors, he said. " This is online, and apparently it is totally Legal and O.K. to do that. But why? Ma
Re:What is really wrong with this bill ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is really wrong with this bill ? (Score:2)
Re:What is really wrong with this bill ? (Score:1)
i print up dozens of magazines that have data as such (we recently printed a manufactuers directory for a medical product magazine) and all of them specificly say that reproduction of that material is NOT legal without permission of the publisher.
I still dont see why because it is online it should be exempt from the copyright laws.
Re:What is really wrong with this bill ? (Score:2)
They can say whatever they want on the flier, of course - reproduction certainly is legal in certain circumstances, regardless of whether its copyrighted or not.
WWMLD? (Score:1)
Doesn't copyright exist? (Score:2)
Even if the individual work is not copyrighted, the collection can be.
Copyright law covers this, more laws are not required.
Defeatist Attitude (Score:1)
With enough people with that attitude, I wouldn't be surprised. Ever write your legislator, or maybe vote?
Remember the US Supreme Court's decision... (Score:5, Informative)
So what's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
For those who are having trouble parsing the proposed legislation, consider the following scenario: You get the bright idea to publish a directory of computer consultancies in the Pacific North West, knowing that time-pressed IT
First Hand Experience (Score:2, Interesting)
At the time, I never thought of any of the information in the database as being copyrighted. The format it was presented in certainly was, and I would have been upset if someone with better marketing skills just t
Someone has to say it... (Score:1)
I'm surprised people are against this. (Score:2)
Do you want companies to be able to copy and sell your kids' student records? Do you want your medical records to be traded among potential insurance companies? Do you want your income tax records bought and sold all over the place?
So, I'm confused. Why don't people think this bill is a good thing?
Re:I'm surprised people are against this. (Score:2)
Perhaps this sentiment springs from the fact that most Slashdotters are also pro-piracy -- they hate to pay a reasonable amount for information or intellectual property (IP), even if such payment is the best means of ensuring the continued production
I think the big point here is... (Score:1)
Enlighten me... (Score:1)
Another Threat to Democracy... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Helpless. (Score:1)
Re:Helpless. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Helpless. (Score:1)
Ever watch "Dark Angel"? (Score:2)
When the miserable future of "Dark Angel" has been made real by corporate greed and government jack-boots, then the US citizens might try to rise up and retake the freedom they so foolishly keep letting go.
By the time they wake up to what they're doing to themselves, the American Apparatchik will be too firmly entrenched. They will of course claim to be capitalists in a democracy, but you won't be able to tell the difference in the common citizen's life.