Re: Database Protection Bill (Coble) - Compromise Reached

[Samuel Trosow <strosow@uwo.ca>]

I think it's way premature to be declaring that a compromise has been
reached on the database controversy. Before we jump to the conclusion that
there's been any sort of reasonable compromise on this matter, let's
carefully review the text of the amended version passed by the
subcommittee (it's not available yet on Thomas or on the Judiciary
Committee website so I can't really comment on it)

There's also a piece in InfoWorld written by Grant Gross (at
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/16/HNsubbill_1.html) which
indicates that several amendments (offered by Rick Boucher who has
consistently been our strongest ally in Congress on copyright matters)were
rejected or withdrawn.

So I'm not so sure that there was really so much of a compromise that we
should be letting our guard down about the bill. If anyone has the text of
the amended version, would you please pass it on to the list.

I should also add that the overall footprint of the bill was, as an
initial matter, much too broad -- and that the justifications for any
legislation whatsoever remains questionable.

Time will tell.

Samuel Trosow

****

> From EDUCAUSE, October 17th, 2003:
>
> COMPROMISE REACHED ON DATABASE-PROTECTION BILL
>
> A House of Representatives subcommittee has passed a bill that would
> extend strong intellectual-property protections to databases after
> opposition from three academic groups was withdrawn. The Database and
> Collections of Information Misappropriation Act, introduced last week by
> Howard Coble (R-N.C.), had stirred objections from academic groups, which
> saw it as a threat to researchers. The original version of the bill
> included a vague exception for academics, but the version that passed the
> subcommittee this week has a much stronger exception. According to the
> revised bill, "no liability shall be imposed under this act" on higher
> education and research institutions or their employees. With that
> language, the Association of American Universities, the American Council
> on Education, and the National Association of State Universities and
> Land-Grant Colleges have ended their opposition to the bill and assumed a
> neutral position. Other groups, including the National Academies, the U.S.
> Chamber of Commerce, and academic-library organizations, continue to
> oppose the bill. Chronicle of Higher Education, 17 October 2003 (sub.
> req'd) http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2003/10/2003101701t.htm
>
> ***