Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will Corporations Own Our Identities?
EagleForum.org ^ | Oct. 22, 2003 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 12/02/2003 9:07:39 AM PST by singsong

No one should be able to own facts about other people. Our names and numbers, and also the laws we must obey, should not be property that can be owned by corporations and policed by federal courts.

But special interests, such as the Software and Information Industry Association, are seeking new powers to own facts about us and about information we need. After quietly shopping a bill to Members of Congress for several weeks, the Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act was finally introduced last week as H.R. 3261.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to create copyrights. But your name, address and telephone number are facts that cannot be copyrighted, as the Supreme Court said when it ruled in 1991 that no one can copyright the telephone book.

The Constitution authorizes copyright protection for "authors." The Court ruled in Feist v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. that a collection of facts lacks sufficient creativity to constitute authorship.

H.R. 3261 doesn't use the word copyright, but it would create a new federal property right in online and offline databases (collections of information), and give the federal courts power to police the use of information in databases. Granting large U.S. and foreign corporations the power to own personal facts about individuals, and prevent others from using those facts, would be the most lucrative handout in years.

H.R. 3261 would allow federal courts to impose stiff penalties if someone uses information from a database that a corporation claims to own. The exceptions to this rule are vague and subject to contrary interpretations, leaving users liable to a lawsuit in which it's up to a federal judge to decide what is "reasonable."

Over the past decade, without federal legislation or judicial supervision, databases have grown rapidly in size and number, and today there are giant databases containing our travel plans, our medical records, our telephone calls, our credit card usage, and even the websites we visit. This Collections of Information bill would chill productive activity because few users of data can afford taking a chance on how a court might rule.

Prominent groups from all across the political spectrum vigorously oppose this new bill. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the legislation could even prevent people from using data found in books checked out of libraries.

(Excerpt) Read more at eagleforum.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Technical
KEYWORDS: collections; copyright; database; dcima; hr3261; information; misappropriation; privacy
It was posted on slashdot today. But it's a clumsy site for discussions, quite leftist at times. This subject had some good comments though. I checked the sponsors - it's a Republican bill. Gives the judges one more item to "innovate" about. The copyright law is already overextended, not to mention DMCA. What's wrong with the bill is its vagueness. There are links to it in the original article.
1 posted on 12/02/2003 9:07:42 AM PST by singsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: singsong
Checked on Thomas, this hasn't been published yet. I can see a need for this bill, but it will have to be very carefully written and narrowly targeted at data created by database companies, as opposed to collected. An example would be the DUNS number for D&B and associated D&B data, such as a modeled sales size or a D&B credit or risk score. A more difficult issue is data collected specifically by D&B, such as an actual sales size gathered off a D&B form - it is actual data but not in the public domain.
2 posted on 12/02/2003 9:24:39 AM PST by dirtboy (New Ben and Jerry's flavor - Howard Dean Swirl - no ice cream, just fruit at bottom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: singsong
I think the basic premise here is wrong; I just checked in my dictionary and right up front there's a 'copyright' statement. A compilation of data is different from the data compiled within it.
3 posted on 12/02/2003 10:07:12 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I'll quote the bill here:

Any person who makes available in commerce to others a quantitatively substantial part of the information... shall be liable... if--
(1) the database was generated, gathered, or maintained through a substantial expenditure of financial resources or time;
(2) the unauthorized making available in commerce occurs in a time sensitive manner and inflicts injury on the database or a product or service offering access to multiple databases; and
(3) the ability of other parties to free ride on the efforts of the plaintiff would so reduce the incentive to produce the product or service that its existence or quality would be substantially threatened.
(b) INJURY- For purposes of subsection (a), the term `inflicts an injury' means serving as a functional equivalent in the same market as the database in a manner that causes the displacement, or the disruption of the sources, of sales, licenses, advertising, or other revenue.
(c) TIME SENSITIVE- In determining whether an unauthorized making available in commerce occurs in a time sensitive manner, the court shall consider the temporal value of the information in the database, within the context of the industry sector involved.


None of these points can be conclusively proved or disproved. The liabilities are based on the owner's perception of "loss and pain". Competition also "inflicts injury" and a competitor may have hard time proving that he did not look at the data and did not "hurt" the poor slacker . In the context of the US legal system, no lawsuit under this bill can be found frivolous. Means that the defendant party is stuck with the $-bill, often driven out of business by legal costs. It's a license to kill just by suing, not winning. This weakness in the legal system is sometimes exploited in law. It's just not a good testament of honesty.
4 posted on 12/02/2003 10:58:06 AM PST by singsong (Demoralization kils first the civilization and THEN the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I can see a need for this bill

I don't see any need for it at all. A listing of facts simply does not deserve copyright protection. Copyright should be reserved for creative expression.

This bill is just another nail in the coffin of fair use - and perhaps the eventual demise of FR as we know it.

5 posted on 12/03/2003 11:54:18 AM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Nick Danger; Bob J
Some bad legislation on the way...
6 posted on 12/03/2003 12:06:48 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: singsong

H.R.3261

Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act (Introduced in House)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, or the laws of a foreign country.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST MISAPPROPRIATION OF DATABASES.

SEC. 4. PERMITTED ACTS.

SEC. 5. EXCLUSIONS.

SEC. 6. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.

SEC. 7. CIVIL REMEDIES.

SEC. 8. LIMITATION ON ACTIONS.

SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.

SEC. 10. NONSEVERABILITY.


7 posted on 12/03/2003 12:17:37 PM PST by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
A listing of facts simply does not deserve copyright protection.

I agree with you there - however, as I said earlier, many commercial databases also contain proprietary information, such as a modeled sales size, a sales size gathered specifically by the vendor, and credit/risk scores. Those values were created by the vendor and are worthy of special protection.

8 posted on 12/03/2003 12:31:12 PM PST by dirtboy (New Ben and Jerry's flavor - Howard Dean Swirl - no ice cream, just fruit at bottom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
many commercial databases also contain proprietary information, such as a modeled sales size, a sales size gathered specifically by the vendor, and credit/risk scores. Those values were created by the vendor and are worthy of special protection.

Those types of data can be protected through contractual agreements. There is no need to open Pandora's Box by expanding copyright protection to raw numbers.

9 posted on 12/03/2003 1:00:22 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson