In recent times, we have received on the listservs various alerts concerning the HR 3261, the Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act. The bill would allow copyright ownership of facts and as a result, would seriously impact the library and research communities. This is a bad bill. This legislation was adverse reported in March 2004 by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and that report is at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_reports&docid=f:hr421p2.108.pdf
I have read that report and other background information and have established the following bullet points which colleagues can use to alert their Members of Congress on this bad piece of legislation. While they are not comprehensive, the bullet points which follow can serve as a starting point:
DATABASE AND COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION MISAPPROPRIATION ACT / H.R. 3261
•there is no serious evidence for a need for such intellectual property legislation
•Little, if any, evidence that the database industry has faced uncertainty in the courts or harmed in the marketplace
•Database owners already have the ability to protect their property through contracts and terms-of-service agreements
•H.R 3261 creates a host of problems involving the free use of factual information.
•H.R. 3261 would allow for someone to drop a fact into a database or collection of materials and then claim copyright to it.
•H.R. 3261 has significant repercussions for scientific research, academic development, and innovation in products and services in many industries.
•Creates new and untested protection for factual information when harm has not been demonstrated and there exists Federal and state remedies to protect databases.
•Basic tenet of intellectually property law holds that facts are not copyrightable, recognizing the great need to disseminate factual information.
•Facts, by their very nature, are discovered, not created, and therefore, part of public domain.
•SCT, in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Te. Ser. Co., 499 US 340 (1991) reaffirmed that originality is the central component of copyright.
•SCT has held that the Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution precludes the copyright of facts. Mere information and ideas cannot be protected works.
•Since Feist, no compelling evidence that there is any danger to the continued prosperity of the database industry.
•There exists a number of state and Federal remedies to protect investments in databases.
•Exemption for non-profit educational, scientific, or educational institutions is wholly inadequate to meet their needs. What they are is allowed to do is decided post-facto and the standard is vague with no guidance.
•The subpoena provision will invite a number of frivolous lawsuits and provides for no judicial oversight and no finding of harm before a subpoena is issued.
•There is no provision to ensure that legal and government information remain in the public domain.
•Interlibrary loan is currently permissible under the Copyright Act but would be a potential violation of the proposed legislation.
•Scientific and research communities approaches to knowledge sharing encourages and supports open access and the greater sharing of data and information across and between disciplines to promote the advancement of science and innovation. This dissemination model is due to restrictive licensing terms and conditions and the high cost of journals.
•Opposed by Amazon.com, AT&T, Comcast, Google, Yahoo, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and various Internet Service Providers.
•Support by big database corporations such as Reed Elsevier, Thomson. Reed Elsevier Political Action Committee has been a regular contributor to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC)
Scott Burgh
Chief Law Librarian
City of Chicago Department of Law Library
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:45:31 PST