Posted on 03/03/2004 12:53:13 PM PST by LibWhacker
Edited on 06/29/2004 7:10:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Imagine doing a Google search for a phone number, weather report or sports score. The results page would be filled with links to various sources of information. But what if someone typed in keywords and no results came back?
That's the scenario critics are painting of a new bill wending its way through Congress that would let certain companies own facts, and exact a fee to access them.
(Excerpt) Read more at wired.com ...
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee approved HR 3261 (the "Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act") on January 21. As this bill represents yet another discouraging expansion of American copyright law, it merits a look. For those who want to read the full text, it is available in PDF format.Are there men who are sons of men still in the House, that will act to toss this bilge-water out?Unlike many bad intellectual property ideas, database protection is an idea being imported into the U.S. from Europe. Efforts to prevent the "misappropriation" of databases have been ongoing for some time; the first version of the current proposal - based on the 1996 EU database directive -- was considered in 1996. It did not pass, but anybody who has watched the legislative system in operation has learned that these things keep coming back until the interests behind them finally get what they want. That would appear to be happening here.
(Source: "HR 3261 and the ownership of facts", http://lwn.net/Articles/68462/ )
They cry to the L-rd in their adversity, From their distress He delivers them,
And causes them to tread in a right way, To make it a City of Life.
They proclaim to the L-rd His kindness, And His wonders to the sons of men.
For He hath satisfied a longing soul, And a hungry soul hath filled with goodness.
If my name, address, phone number, SSN, driver's license number, credit card number, bank account number, etc., are in their databases, then I want a royalty from every fee that they receive.
-PJ
That's strange. Bad copyright laws usually start in the U.S. and spread outwards.
The phone book matter has already been decided in favor of freedom (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc.). But I guess that's about to change.
History shows this is the case. The US has (thankfully) been resistant to such overreaches against Freedom.
For example consider the following:
1886/7 - The seminal Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is signed (in Berne, Switzerland). It intends to give international copyright protection to the creative works of the citizens of European member state signatories. Works protected include: novels, short stories, poems and plays; songs, operas, musicals, sonatas and symphonies; drawings, paintings, sculptures and architectural works. In the International Copyright Act of 1886, Great Britain gives assent to the obligations of the Berne Convention. This Act abolishes the requirement to register foreign works, and introduces an exclusive right to import or produce translations. The U.K. ratifies the Berne Convention with effect from 5th December, 1887. The U.S., however, remains governed by its 1790 Copyright Act, and is not subject to the Berne Convention. Longstanding U.S. literary and musical piracy of works by European authors and composers (and vice-versa) continues to be an accepted way of life for publishers, until finally brought to an end by the establishment of separate bilateral copyright agreements with the U.S.. The Berne Convention is revised in 1908 and 1928. The Berlin Act of 1908 extends the duration of copyright to the life of the author plus 50 years, takes account of new technologies, and declares that formal registration is unnecessary in order to hold a copyright. The Rome Act of 1928 is the first to codify the moral rights of authors and artists.It is with sad irony I note what passes for "moral acts" in Rome just as the Third Reich was getting started.
The ESV text may be quoted (in written, visual, or electronic form) up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted to not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.Before you whine that the compilers of these databases got the information from somewhere else themselves, remember that they too would be subject to this law, and also that they did all the effort in the sorting and presentation of the data. I wish you guys would find a real news article about this topic, rather than an editorial from Wired....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.