Congressional Committee Approves Database Bill 353
thisissilly writes "Ready for another set of restrictions to so-called 'intellectual property'? The House Judiciary committee approved a bill to extend copyright-like protection to databases, despite opposition by AT&T, Amazon, Yahoo, and Google, among others. Currently mere compilations of facts, such as phone books, are not copyrightable. This would change that. Coverage from Cnet, Internetnews. No word on a Senate version. Let's stop this one before it grows."
Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:5, Interesting)
My expectation is that once this law goes into effect, you'll see a number of states remove whatever databases they have that deal with law and assign those rights to a private company, which will be able to charge exhorbitant fees for access, and go after anyone who does the same on the basis that they copied their work, even if the material was independently compiled because there is no easy way to tell a copy of a copy from a copy of an original.
Anyone trying to create their own law database would find themselves in court, and because of the expense, they'd give up before ever going to trial.
This will be a win for Lexis I think.
(and yes, I *like* my tin-foil hat.)
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:2)
Don't all laws by definition have to be publicly published?
I struggle to see why if party A goes to the trouble and expense to collect and organize some information that they should be able to seek compensation for that effort- or you can go get it on your own.
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be. However, the entrenched competitor would have the deep pockets to put up a lot of legal trouble for the upstart... who would likely not have that kind of money. It's copyright law based on the golden rule - he who has the gold, rules. For example, Wikipedia would get 100 years of protection for any facts that it had - but on the other hand, would suddenly become a target for anyone with money i
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:2)
Usually I'm in step for the most part around here- and it feels odd to be so 'out there' on my own. But I just don't see it. Maybe somebody will point it out in a manner that clicks in my mind- but so far nothing.
If you work to compile some data there should be some r
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:5, Informative)
Also, a database is defined as "a collection of a large number of discrete items of information produced for the purpose of bringing such discrete items of information together in one place" ... not each item idividually.
Finally, copying an entry out of an encyclopedia or almanac and passing it off as your own is plagiarism, and should be illegal in my opinion (if it isn't already).
[All italics mine.]
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like one of the possible goals of this legislation, from what you've repeated here, might be another way to prosecute spammers. If they buy a database of email addresses, they no longer have the right to distribute that database.
However, there are a lot of other cases where this could have a seriously chilling effect. For example, there's the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, which is served up on the web by the University of Michigan (though they don't compile the data). The most recent year's data is never available on the web, only prior years... you have to pay about $300 for a CD-ROM to get the last go-round. Still, if that database is copyrighted, and I use it to generate some statistics for something someone doesn't like (such as finding that there's a negative correlation between education and going to church), now there's a mechanism to quash my findings. If the compilation of the data is protected under copyright, then derivative works are also under the purview of the copyright holder, and statistics derived from a compilation of data would probably be derivative works.
This seems like it would be mostly used by companies that sell marketing information, and stuff like GIS data. I guess currently it's perfectly legal for me to buy some data from ESRI and then export it to CSV and send copies to all my friends, but this law would prevent that.
Then the question is, should that be legal? Maybe it shouldn't, but it's hard to see how you could really implement a law to protect it without it being wide open for abuse.
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a simple database, containing information which I have gathered:
1+0=1
1+1=2
1+2=3
1+3=4
(etc.)
I shall print this database in a book, thus garnering copyright. I shall make this database available on a subscription basis only, for one billion dollars per user. NOW try and teach your kids basic arithmetic, BWAHAHAHAHA!!
Extreme example, but goes to support what you're getting at: once distribution (copying) of FACTS can be restricted, the only possible end r
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd think so, but they're not. You have to pay to see lots of them.
That's why I laugh whenever anyone coughs up "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:4, Informative)
Why protect activities related to education, research, or scholarship?
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:4, Interesting)
If those of us who have concerns about the direction of so-called intellectual property laws don't take the time to actually read and understand those laws...
and then say:
So.... Why protect databases made by educational institutions? I dunno.
So you want to criticize me for not reading and understanding the law here in one breath, and in the next you gladly confess your own ignorance of this very same law.
That's beautiful.
Your lame assertions notwithstanding, I read the legislation. I paid particular attention to two features, first, the fact that law is not excluded, even though something like a domain registry is, and second, that the exclusion concerning government-sourced data has a loophole the size of Wyoming.
Moreover, it doesn't say that only educational institutions can copyright this stuff. Educational institutions are included, but the wording clearly indicates that anyone can obtain the copyright in the course of engaging in "education."
As would be the case for a private firm selling access to the law. They would be engaging in education.
Indeed, as it is written, they would have a virtual monopoly on education in this particular subject matter.
See?
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:5, Interesting)
Also currently (it appears) that laws are not copyrightable. [ucdavis.edu] Why this is trying to be pused thru is beyond me. To make a quick buck for govt? to prevent unfettered access? To use copyright law to prevent the publication of laws for 'national security [apfn.net]'? Gives me the willies.
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:2)
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:2)
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:4, Interesting)
Private databases aren't shared, so they don't need it. Public databases *are* shared, so (as far as I can tell) they don't need it, or shouldn't be shared. There has to be some reason that this bill is getting pushed forward, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is...
In the existing framework, I find music and artistic things are sensible to apply copyright to, as are proprietary things of various types. Data made publicly available today is immediately trivial to collect, and those who make data available *know* that. Why else are there subscription-based search sites? This bill is pointless, unless it's somehow malicious.
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you've got the poster completely backwards. It's not the Groklaw would be protected, but that for-profit law indexes would prosecute sites like Groklaw under this law. It doesn't matter if they're infringing or not... the reason facts are not currently subject to copyright is that it's darn hard to tell whether someone
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:5, Informative)
It looks like standard-codes adopted by governemt can be copied due to a recent court ruling: more info [findarticles.com]
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:5, Informative)
The US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal (warning: pdf) [supremecourtus.gov] (denied a petition for a writ of certiorari) of the US 5th Circuit's en banc ruling [findlaw.com] in SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE V. VEECK, PETER that re-decided the 5th Circuit's previous panel decision [findlaw.com] that affirmed the District Courts's summary judgment in favor of defendant Southern Building Code Congress International Inc, reversing the District Court and remanding the case to it for dismissal of SBCCI's claims.
Or to be less concise:
A three-judge panel, with one judge dissenting, of the 5th Circuit initially found that Souther Building Code Congress International Inc. retained copyright to its codes even though those codes were incorporated by reference in the law of, among other places, two Texas towns, Anna and Savoy. The majority's decison laregly rested on findings of other Circuit Courts, and explcitly said that "We decline to create a circuit split by reaching the opposite conclusion today." The majority's opinion held that the Supreme Court's finding in Banks v. Manchester didn't apply to the controversy at hand.
Then one of the judges of the 5th Circuit asked [findlaw.com] that the all the judges in the 5th Circuit decide the case -- this is called the circuit sitting en banc -- and a majority of the 5th Circuits judges agreed to hear the case en banc.
The decision of the majority (9-6, with the Chief Judge dissenting) of the entire 5th Cirucit took a diferent view of Banks v. Manchester, and so reversed the Distruct's Court's summary judgment in favor of SBCCI's claim that Veeck had violated SBCCI"s copyright to the building codes at issue, by posting them on his web site.
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:3, Informative)
y
1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
They are trying to take that freedom away by declaring that someone can own the rights to such information.
(Tin foil hats are property of the producers of the movie Signs. You had damn well better register that now, before it's too late.)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying this is a great law, or anything. But I've worked for a number of organizations who resisted putting their best data onto the web, because it was so hard to prevent people from stealing it and reselling it to the public AND there was no legal mechanism to prevent it. To assemble paper and put it into a database takes money. Why shouldn't companies want to protect their investments?
After all, nothing stops you from making the same investment and opening it to the public (freedb, anyone?). This just stops you from riding the coattails of somebody else's hard work without their permission.
Sucking Noise (Score:4, Insightful)
If anyone makes fun of your tinfoil hat, they are either afraid or stupid. I'm not sure what it was like for doubters in Germany in the 1930s except it was probably similar to whats happening to them now.
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:5, Insightful)
First, in one sense this happened long ago (and makes this law even more stupid). LexisNexis and Westlaw, the two monster legal database companies, had a big lawsuit when they first started moving online because one (Lexis, I think) was copying the other's printed cases to build their online database. The way it came down, if I remember correctly, is that the material itself (e.g., the court's opinion) cannot be copyrighted, but the way it is presented can (such as the numbering system).
Second, I don't think this will have any effect on public access to law. You may not realize it, but everyone of you almost definitely has access to a public law library -- either at the county courthouse, a local university, whatever (no guarantees as to its quality, but its there if you look). Even more relevant, though, is that most court opinions and state laws are available free online from your state goverment (try your state supreme court and legislature webpages), and the trend has been for more and more of this to be published on the web at the same time LexisNexis and Westlaw have grown. The reasons that people use the pay services are that you can find all of the information in one place, and they have sophisticated search tools to find what you are looking for. Local laws/ordinances are harder to find, but they should be available at that law library I mentioned.
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:4, Informative)
Court decisions and statute law are public domain, by long established precedent reaching back to the US Supreme Court's findings in Wheaton v.
Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834) and Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.Ct. 36 (1888). Banks relied upon a decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 6 N.E. 559 (1886), which held that "justice requires that all should have free access to" both court decisions and statute law.
Furthermore, the 1976 Copyright Act (at 17 U.S.C. 105) specifically denies copyright protection to federal statutes and regulation; the state basis of Banks implies that state and local laws are also not copyrightable, and this is upheld in Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International Inc., No. 99-40632.
Indeed, as the Veeck decision reminds, "Justice Harlan, writing for the Sixth Circuit [in Howell v. Miller, 91 F. 129, 137 (6th Cir. 1898)]: 'any person desiring to publish the statutes of a state may use any copy of such statutes to be found in any printed book . .
Re:Already the case... (Score:3, Interesting)
So technically some state and local governments can charge you for laws right now.
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:4, Informative)
(b) PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW-
(1) LAWS REGULATING CONDUCT THAT IS SUBJECT OF THE ACT- On or after the effective date of this Act, no State statute, rule, regulation, or common law doctrine that prohibits or otherwise regulates conduct that is the subject of this Act shall be effective.
Dear God...look at 7.c.2, 7.c.2.b, 7.c.2.g.
And 7.d:
(d) IMPOUNDMENT- At any time while an action under this section is pending, including an action seeking to enjoin a violation, the court may order the impounding, on such terms as it deems reasonable, of all copies of contents of a database made available in commerce or attempted to be made available in commerce potentially in violation of section 3, and of all masters, tapes, disks, diskettes, or other articles by means of which such copies may be reproduced. The court may, as part of a final judgment or decree finding a violation or attempted violation of section 3, order the remedial modification or destruction of all copies of contents of a database made available in commerce or attempted to be made available in commerce in violation of section 3, and of all masters, tapes, disks, diskettes, or other articles by means of which such copies may be reproduced.
IANAL, but That looks like it means they can impound anything that could possibly have a copy of the said material on it. Meaning, every computer, floppy and tape in a company.
And here's the punchline: (I'll let you guys play with it. I've got to go home.)
SEC. 10. NONSEVERABILITY.
(a) IN GENERAL- If the Supreme Court of the United States holds that the provisions of section 3, relating to prohibition of misappropriation of databases, are invalid under Article I of, or the First Amendment to, the Constitution of the United States, then this Act is repealed, effective as of the date of the Supreme Court decision.
(b) TERMINATION- Subsection (a) shall cease to be effective at the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:4, Interesting)
Congress can't legislate it's way out of judicial review.
Re:Notice that law isn't exempt (Score:2, Interesting)
As for overturning local law it's certainly possible. Although I will point out that my own city a few years ago spent thirteen million dollars of taxpayer money to defend (unsuccessfully) an unconstitutional law.
You have to be willing to go up against that.
KFG
Stop it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Surely you jest. Remember what the guy said to Deckard in Blade Runner, "If you're not corporate, you're little people!"
Re:Stop it? (Score:2)
Protects work not data (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Protects work not data (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Protects work not data (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when are the Patriot Act and DMCA harmless on paper? They have been used exactly as they were written, and anyone who is surprised by this should have paid more attention to how they were written.
On the other hand, here we have a bill that explicitly limits how it can be applied. As long as that clause doesn't get removed in negotiations, it's
Re:Protects work not data (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Protects work not data (Score:2)
They already can't steal your collection... because it's currently not illegal.
You're proposing solving a problem that doesn't yet exist by creating the problem itself.
Re:Protects work not data (Score:2)
I honestly have trouble seeing why- if some party goes to great lengths to collect some information - why they should not have control of the results of that effort. If it doesn't take a lot of effort- then it wont have much value since others will just duplicate the effort- rather than its results. I don't see
Because you haven't offered anything new... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, this could be devastating to researches. Imagine writing a paper and facing a lawsuit over your use of facts. True, the facts aren't copyrighted, but at what point have you crossed the line from using and reporting on facts to compiling them? In any case this gives companies another tool to bludgeon poor people with ala DMCA.
This is an appalling idea that's clearly meant to make a few people richer at the expense of everyone else.
Re:Protects work not data (Score:5, Interesting)
There are already laws governing direct theft (of information or anything else).
Shoehorning this law into copyright blurs the whole purpose of copyright even more than it currently is.
Copyright is about making copies of works that (judging by whatever standard) have some artistic merit. Protecting the author of an original work against people who would copy his work (or make a derivative thereof) and not give due credit.
The idea that databases of readily available, pure facts are of artistic merit is insulting to the real artists whose works will eventually (we hope) enter the public domain and enrich our society as a whole.
If they want a law to protect databases from theft, they already have "trade secrets" and so on.
But that's not the issue. These databases are publicly available. The companies involved aren't protecting an artistic work, or a trade secret. They want to be able to enforce rigid restrictions on otherwise public knowledge, simply because they aggregated it and published it first.
Re:Protects work not data (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only can they take your most private information and sell it to anyone that will pay for it, now they can copyright your data too.
I hereby declare that all my personal information is a "compilation database" about me and is copyright by myself alone; anyone using this information without my express written consent will be labeled as a "thief" stealing my intellectual property and will be sued for copyright infringement.
The world has gone nuts!
Re:Protects work not data (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Protects work not data (Score:2)
Frivolous? (Score:2, Insightful)
they would have to prove that you did. Just as difficult.
Not if they have a couple orders of magnitude more money to spend on legal representation than you have.
Re:Frivolous? (Score:2)
The biggest problem I would see is how you are going to ever prove someone could not possibly have collected the information on their own. Watermarking? Some propietary formating of the data itself? Maybe,
Re:Protects work not data (Score:2)
Using your example- those constants are out there because someone put the work into finding them and then put it out there. What if someone puts a lot of work and money into compiling some new numbers? Do they not get some control over what happens with that? I don't have a problem with them having a choice. In the case of this bill it would need to be a private individual or company since schools are exempt.
But lets say
what are they smokin? (Score:4, Funny)
There's a lot of internet cigar shops stressing about that one.
Re:what are they smokin? (Score:2)
Apparently not cigars they got through the mail...
Ok, so let's do it! (Score:5, Interesting)
How long till... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, I don't know... (Score:5, Funny)
- Phone companies
- Online businesses
- spammers
- The IRS
for having illegally copied versions and/or deriviative works of our database.We'll sell lots of stock at inflated prices, then sell it all just before we lose the court cases.
I mean, if it worked for SCO...
Living in a fact free world (Score:5, Interesting)
- (5) DATABASE
combined with their definition of a prohibited action (making "available in commerce to others a quantitatively substantial part of the information in a database" is prohibited without consent) would seem to make it possible to sue for almost any use of any information without consent. At least, any information that can be decomposed into a small number of parts in some way or another.(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraph (B), the term `database' means a collection of a large number of discrete items of information produced for the purpose of bringing such discrete items of information together in one place or through one source so that persons may access them.
I wonder if we'll see SCO-like attempts to quickly produce as many databases of as many facts as possible. Anyone using any facts whatsoever could be extorted for license fees or subject to lawsuits by rabid hordes of attorneys.
Items Vs databases (Score:2)
Individual items such as terms, etc, would not be copyrightable. Otherwise all you'd really need is a DB with millions of buzzwords etc to start the legal barrage.
I worry about randomly generated databases though. Say somebody put together a collection of words etc, programmed rhyme rules, and schemes/word-matches, then had it gener
Re:Items Vs databases (Score:2)
everything about this bill is rediculous. its all covered in some form by other laws, i bet.
i motion to disolve congress
Re:Living in a fact free world (Score:3, Interesting)
The bill is for copyright-like protections, not patent-like protections. The scenario you described above is more like a patented database situation - where the facts are protected regardless of their use (much as patents apply to alternate implementations of the same idea). C
Great, just what we need... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great, just what we need... (Score:4, Funny)
Transmission stopped
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering that I can fully claim myself as owner/manager of said conglomeration of information (being that I'm over 18), I think I can classify myself as a database, and all the information therein...
Re:So... (Score:2, Funny)
When is a copy not a copy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:When is a copy not a copy? (Score:2)
How do you distinguish a list from a copy? And would not the burden of proof be on the accuser? Don't they need to provide some mechanism for making the case that it was 'their' data that was 'stolen'?
Sure you could copyright your database of the periodic table. But I can just go to the source you used- or some other source and make my own table database without using your data.
I'm not the smartest guy- so I really am look
Read The _____ Bill (Score:2, Informative)
Read the _____ bill [loc.gov]. There seems to be a pretty high burden of proof, the republication must be "quantitatively substantial," and the information must be "time sensitive," having "temporal value."
Use a Copyright Trap (Score:3, Informative)
You would presumably place a copyright trap [wordspy.com] in your database.
Map makers, form companies, and the like are known to insert intentional [straightdope.com] errors [eeggs.com] in their maps in order to prevent somebody who has copied their information from claiming that the information was gathered independently.
Re:When is a copy not a copy? (fake entries) (Score:2)
As far as safe level of copying of someone elses data, the original owner probably only needs to prove that they were somehow harmed by your copy, or that you took too much of their info, or that what you took constitutes too large a fraction of your work. And if you made any money on the c
Re:When is a copy not a copy? (Score:2)
If you applied current copyright case law to the question, that would be considered a "derivative work", which is an infringement.
The easiest way for the "owner" of a database to prove that you "stole" it from him would be to borrow a trick from cartographers. They'll sometimes include a fictitious town or a deliberate irregularity in the shape of a lake or something of that sort, so that if that sam
Profit! (Score:5, Funny)
Pi is exactly 3! It'll be illegal for you to say otherwise.
ACM Policy Position (Score:4, Informative)
The current policy committee positions are viewable on the ACM web site [acm.org].
Um, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um, no. (Score:2)
Re:Um, no. (Score:2, Insightful)
This would be true if the case were decided solely on the basis of Constitutionality, but it wasn't. If you read the decision, you will see that t
Feist does not say that. (Score:4, Informative)
Feist absolutely does not say that compilations of facts are not copyrightable.
I promise. Go and read it. Feist says a couple things. For purposes of this thread it says that the white pages does not have a sufficient level of originality or creativity to rise to copyrightable level. The originality or creativity spoken of for factual compilations would be in their selection, coordination, or arrangement.
From the headnotes in the link you provided:
Compilations of facts are copyrightable if they attain a certain threshold of originality in their arrangement. If a compilation reaches this level and attains copyright, however, the facts themselves are not copyrighted.
I haven't read the new bill linked to in the original post and have no comment on how it treats protection of facts... the point of this post is just to point out a misunderstanding of what Feist stands for.
Re:Um, no. (Score:2)
I dunno. (Score:2)
Hell, some trustworthy 3rd party could create a private "do-not spam" database, and if you recieve a spam, you could go after the sender for copyright violation.
Hold on there... (Score:3, Funny)
Take action before, not after... (Score:4, Informative)
Um, this bill has been on the table for quite a while now. (see also [eff.org])
The time for action is when these bills are on the table. Granted, if AT&T can't budge the rats that passed this abhoration, what chance do you have... Write (hand written) letters to your representatives [house.gov] and vote your conscience this November !
Examples: TV listsings, Sports results (Score:3, Interesting)
Sports statistics? Nope, don't try copying those either.
Where is the "I" in that "IP"? (Score:2)
Expect anything from this. How about copyrighting a database consisting of the digits of PI, for instance? Then math.h would still be illegal after Darl goes to jail...
actually, factual compilations are (c)able (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not true. The Supreme Court decision that all this stuff comes from is known as Feist. Feist ruled, basically, that the white pages is not copyrightable because there was absolutely no creativity or originality in listing : last name, first name, address, phone number.
If, however, you took a bunch of mere facts and arranged them in an innovative and creative way you very well might be able to get copyright protection for the compilation. the white pates isn't copytightable, but some other collections of mere facts certainly are. The copyright would cover the compilation, however, and not the facts themselves.
Re:actually, factual compilations are (c)able (Score:4, Informative)
That being said, I think you are correct. The facts in the the actual tuples would not be copyrightable. One of the Big Deals in copyright jurisprudence is that facts themselves are not copytightable and neither are ideas. What is copyrightable is expression (your particular expression of ideas or facts rather than those ideas or facts themselves).
So, the data in the tuples, if we're talking about just facts, are not copyrightable. If you generated a report from the database it might be copyrightable if its "selection, coordination, and arrangement" were sufficiently creative. "sufficiently creative" is a blurry concept, I know. Here is a summary of Feist's holding, from findlaw.com:
One more thing to write your congresspeople about. (Score:2, Interesting)
So does this mean. (Score:2)
Amazon's Opposition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Coble on his rotten bill... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Without the minimal protection afforded by this legislation, we run the risk that new databases will not be created and made available to the public, thereby depriving the public of one more information source."
Maybe "depriving the public of one more information source" would be a GOOD think...in this day and age info is next to worthless because supply far exceeds demand and the quality of most is utter crap.
I for one, would be HAPPY to be deprived of one more spammer's email database, telemarketer's call list or direct-marketer's snail-mail database...
This bill is so wrong headed...these database operators seem to think they're entitled to owning the info they store in their systems. For the most part IT'S NOT THEIRS TO OWN...you can't own the fact that the clear daytime sky is blue. You can't own my vital statistics, or my street address. You have no right to and you never should because you didn't create those facts and they were never sold to you. All you did is set up a computer to store the facts and programs to sort, retrieve and utilise them. Current law protects that already and you deserve no further protection.
I propose a new bill (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS was right!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Solution copyright your vitals (Score:2)
File a copyright registration of your
name, address, phone number, any other information.
Sue any buisness that contacts you for violation of your copyright information.
YES!!!! Thank you, Congress! (Score:3, Interesting)
This would make it legal to copyright collections of personal data. Copyright protections also extend to derivative works of existing copyrighted material (which in this case means subsets and/or the addition of other information).
How does this benefit the average Joe? Simple. Take every bit of personal information you can think of, stick it into a database, and file for a copyright on it. Poof, you've just made every company out there trying to gather data on you guilty of a copyright violation for which you can sue them (and theoretically win, if the courts don't consider this as yet another law that only benefits corporations). And, as a bonus, the courts take copyright violations for monetary gain FAR more seriously than just coincidental violations, so companies selling your (copyrighted) personal information between each other commit an even more serious offense.
Sweet. Consider this my notification to the world that I have just compiled such a collection, and consider it copyrighted.
Re:YES!!!! Thank you, Congress! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:YES!!!! Thank you, Congress! (Score:3, Informative)
Take every bit of personal information you can think of, stick it into a database, and file for a copyright on it. Poof, you've just made every company out there trying to gather data on you guilty of a copyright violation for which you can sue them
Simply replicating a piece of information does not constitute a copyright violation. You have
fits with corporate-driven history of copyright (Score:4, Informative)
Copyright law has been extending its domain since its inception. This process has been driven by corporate interests -- not, as the RIAA would have you believe, by creators and artists trying to "protect their rights".
If, even after the RIAA lawsuits and now this, you still think that copyright is basically a socially good idea that just gets taken too far sometimes, please see
http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel/writings/copyright
for a possibly eye-opening history (and a blueprint for change).
Best,
-Karl
The first thing I noticed (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry it's IMPOSSIBLE (Score:3, Funny)
Elsevier: Mr. Russell, I sue you for quoting my copyrighted database.
B. Russell: Oh, I see, you claim to be the copyright holder. Do you have proof?
Elsevier: Easy. Here is the relevant quote from the U.S. copyright registry...
B. Russell: Gotcha! You can't do that! :-)
Price lists and places like Fatwallet. (Score:4, Insightful)
This could have a possibly monstrous effect on online comparison shopping. Things like www.froogle.com become impossible as retailers begin copyrighting their inventory and price databases.
-dameron
Prior Art? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wha??? Congress do something dum? (Score:2)
2) How many computer scientists turned lawyers do you know?
3)...
4) 0 and 1 are patented.
Re:Wha??? Congress do something dum? (Score:2)
Re:Wha??? Congress do something dum? (Score:2)
If you really think about it, does one really need a M.S. in Computer Science or Software Engineering if you have been in the industry for 5 years?
Re:Wha??? Congress do something dum? (Score:2)
Damn...I'd just be happy to copyright:
"3. ???"
Next person who posts one of these jokes get the DMCA all over their ass. Sweet!
My best Jeff Goldblum imitation... (Score:2)
Re:great (Score:4, Funny)
No, not yet. Didn't you ever watch Saturday Morning Cartoons?
And I quote:
I'm just a bill,
Yes, I'm only a bill,
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city,
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday...
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I'm still just a bill.
{Gee, bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage!}
{Well I got *this* far. When I started, I wasn't even a *bill* - I was just an idea. Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called their local congressman and he said "You're right, there ought to be a law." Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress, and I became a bill. And I'll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law.}
I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well now I'm stuck in committee
And I sit here and wait
While a few key congressmen
Discuss and debate
Whether they should
Let me be a law...
Oh how I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.
{Listen to those congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?}
{Yes. I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favourably, otherwise I may die.}
{"Die?"}
{Yeah: die in committee. Oooh! But it looks like I'm gonna live. Now I go to the House of Representatives and they vote on me.}
{If they vote "yes", what happens?}
{Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.}
{Oh no!}
{Oh yes!}
I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill,
Well then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the President to sign.
And if he signs me then I'll be a law...
Oh, how I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.
{You mean even if the whole Congress says you should be a law, the President can still say no?}
{Yes, that's called a "veto". If the President vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress, and they vote on me again, and by that time it's...}
{By that time, it's very unlikely that you'll *become* a law! It's not easy to become a law, is it?}
No! But how I hope and I pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill!
{He signed you, bill! Now you're a law!}
{Oh yes!}