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

[Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org>]

David R. Cohen wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.

The whole point of the bill is to create exclusive rights to facts in
databases.

> 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?

Because information is free.

> 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.

[. . .] "sweat of the brow" courts [. . .] handed out proprietary interests
in facts and declared that authors are absolutely precluded from saving time
and effort by relying upon the facts contained in prior works. In truth,
"[i]t is just such wasted effort that the proscription against the copyright
of ideas and facts ... [is] designed to prevent." Rosemont Enterprises, Inc.
v. Random House, Inc., 366 F.2d 303, 310 (CA2 1966), cert. denied 385 U.S.
1009, 87 S.Ct. 714, 17 L.Ed.2d 546 (1967).
(http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/feist.html)

> 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.

You're talking about facts in databases.

> 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".

This is not a fair use issue.  Fair use refers to certain exceptions which
allow for copying of original expression.  This is about creating exclusive
rights to facts in databases.

Seth Johnson

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.