RE: Not copyrighting facts (RE: copyrighting FACTS???)

["David R. Cohen" <DRcohen@oceanalaw.com>]

Seth Johnson wrote:

>This is the most bizarre statement.  The bill is giving copyright-like
>protections to facts contained in databases.  That's the whole point
>of it -- create exclusive rights to facts in databases.  Either you are
>saying nothing in response to the point, or you are just plain trying to
>obfuscate the issue.
>
>Seth Johnson
>New Yorkers for Fair Use

It is really unfortunate when things like this get so distorted.

This proposed legislation has NOTHING to do with trying to copyright facts
or block public access to public domain information. It isn't even
intended to create "excusive" databases -- insofar as the original "facts"
are concerned. Raising these issues, however, does serve to inflame people
and if that is the goal it is a successful tactic . . . but it isn't
right.

If I, as a commercial publisher, collect data (public domain data) from
one or more sources, assemble it into a database -- perhaps with new
"value added" components or perhaps with sophisticated search and
retrieval software -- and offer for it for sale, my potential customers
will have to decide if I am providing them with a benefit that justifies
paying for "free" information.

If they decide the answer is "No" and they want free access to the same
information for themselves, they should have every right to do so. They
can go the same source as I did, collect the same "facts" and even create
their own database. If they wish, they can also make that database freely
available as a public service -- and in competition to commercially
available products.

It is my understanding that this was one of the first issues dealt with in
this legislation and the bill is not designed to affect that choice, or
process, in the slightest. The language in Section 4(a) of the bill
specifically and explicitly deals with this issue.

http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/databasebill1003.pdf

Why, however, should anyone be entitled to take MY work product (my "sweat
equity" if you will) for free? And potentially then offer my own product
"free" to anyone?

Why do you think there is such a debate about this? It's not, in my
opinion, because the facts will be unavailable in their original form,
it's because it is neither easy nor convenient for the user to access them
in the original form. Precisely why, amongst other things, I may have
decided to invest my money in compiling that particular database.

If it was easy (or free) to access and/or compile the facts, there would
be no problem and no debate. There would be no market for compiled
databases of public domain information and commercial entities would then
not invest in preparing these databases. The public would have their
access directly from the source.

We are not talking about "the facts" here. We are talking about the
presentation.

Perhaps people are also too focused on the large publishers with enormous
databases. The Internet has allowed large numbers of smaller publishers,
like Oceana, to offer online content in very focused areas (our specialty
is International Law). Given the [relatively] small size of our potential
market, it won't take much free use to severely affect products that we
offer. Regardless of which side of this bill you are on, limiting the
availability of difficult to secure information is probably not a
desirable outcome, but users generally don't, in my experience, draw those
kinds of distinctions.

It seems to me that apart from legitimate "fair use" concerns that appear
to have been satisfied in the new draft bill, the other opponents of this
bill are looking for much more than "access to the facts".

David Cohen
Oceana Publications, Inc.