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

["Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>]

A compromise on bad legislation, that protects somewhat researchers
affiliated with educational institutions? How is that good legislation?

It puts anyone else doing research of any kind from public information in
databases at considerable risk of draconian restrictions and includes, if
I understand correctly, derivative data creations or publications from the
databases. And probably stops publishers from publishing such derivate
data sets or works (without permission from the the database source).

A derivative focusing on a specific topic would already be covered, and
the individual would have to pay for the privilege of extracting and
re-compiling publicly available information. And probably be prohibited
from publication of the narrower dataset if a commercial database were the
source.Without permissions. I don't mind the paying for extracting, but
limiting the use of what I've extracted from your public source
information is a large can of worms.

1. Let's say a producer creates a database from government created
information, -its probably already been done-of temperature changes in the
North Atlantic over X years and I want to create a mini-database to
scrutinize just a small section perhaps of areas off the southern coast of
Iceland.

If the data is already in a database with "strong" protection, wouldn't I
find that because its already in the larger database, I have no legal
right to re-use the data in a smaller focused compilation and publish the
dataset separately? Or do I have that right if I'm an academic, but no one
else does? What publisher would even agree to publish it? They wouldn't be
exempt! OH, I can go back and extract it myself from the government
data-well maybe, since we are seeing serious problems with continuity of
access to government information-particularly in electronic format.

2. What about all the specialized phone directories from competing
companies that have cropped up on the internet or on your doorstep.
Subsets of a larger data set I've already compiled, you can't recompile if
I am the source.  No more Cabarrus County as a special subset of
Charlotte's phone numbers? Or regionalized yellow pages from companies
getting the data from "original" sources? Is this just an attempt to
"recitify" the Feist decision? Feist Publications, Inc. V. Rural Telephone
Service Company, Inc ... with the big phone companies the winners? Is this
the telephone directory law? The Supreme Court held there was no
originality for compiling a phone book, and no copyright.

This new database "protection", is actually, as most mislabeled government
passed laws, AGAINST the creation of specialized databases. The original
compiler gets not just first dibs, but all the dibs on subsidiary and
specialized creations?

What else could we loose? 

3. Could we have subsequent editions of the standard Mormon Americana
Bibliography (which locates books in addition to identifying them) if OCLC
could enforce database rights it's been claiming (remember the copyright
notification symbol placed in the 1980's for OCLC's compilation of library
created and other public data??)  I suspect they could legitimately block
such publication done without their permission even though large segments
of OCLC records are directly from Library of Congress cataloging and
location information is submitted by individual libraries.  Isn't it
unique that you can find so many libraries who have it. Does only OCLC
have the right to tell anyone what libraries own what books?  They just
might have more rights than the telephone companies do- I suspect they
would have that right. But I'd love to hear a legal response to this
question. Is this the end of specialized bibliography? Does it being in
print rather than electronic create some protection for the derivative
nature of the data? Can I publish it in print, but can't mount it as a
separate database? Can I give it away but not sell it-there is no
distinction, as far as I can tell, about that, either case would be
prohibited.

So we can pay to search and then pay to use data we extract, and pay to
publish it? Wow, a new source of income for library catalogs, (they are
databases aren't they) where's the dotted line??  Maybe a large publisher
will want to buy my library's catalog!

3. Another, and important to many many individuals area is genealogy
information in databases. -what about the Family Search database of the
LDS church. That's most (though not all) public information that has been
converted-and yes it's taken years, and lots of money, and sophisticated
programming, its a tremendous resources. It is the example par excellence
of sweat of brow effort on public data.  But individuals-if this law is
passed --could not, without permission or payments do much with that data
without the LDS church's permission?? (let's hope individuals cite it as a
source, but right now they don't have to do even that).  I assume an
individual could not post derivative information on the free web of any of
that data if that is their source, since the law essentially privatizes
such information doesn't it? (You would have to go to the Public Record
Office, church, parish, etc.  records, i.e the "original" source which may
not longer exist at the original site-or any other except the Church's
vaults or the Genealogy library, to duplicate the data)

And when does the "right" to control what individuals or companies do with
such data end? As far as I can tell-Never??

Hey, maybe we can get rid of some our Congress members if they upset the
genealogy applecart enough! That one has legs I suspect! I'm sure there
are many many more examples.

Are derivative works from non-proprietary information in a protected
database subsidiary to rights of the first compiler?  Well isn't that what
this is about? Even if the purpose is non-commercial-? Oh, right go to the
graveyard yourself. I can see paying for you having gone to the graveyard,
i.e. for access to your compilation for your sweat, if you will. I can't
see that USING your information on public source data in public forums-up
to some magic percentage perhaps, should be controlled by you. That's just
bad public policy.

I think its astoundingly bad law. -If I understand it correctly.  Anyone,
please correct me where I've misunderstood. (I'm quite capable of gross
oversimplification and misunderstanding)

Chuck Hamaker