H.R. 3261: Database protection rears it's ugly visage

A bill in the 108th congress that doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar is H.R. 3261 (a/k/a "Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act"). This is especially disconcerting considering that The House of Representatives intellectual-property subcommittee recently passed the bill 11-4! On a similar note, I know quite a few people that were surprised by the quick passage recently of the late-term abortion bill through both houses of congress... the speed at which that bill negotiated its way through congress was impressive... which Bush has said he looks forward to signing.

Let's not let this happen to H.R. 3261. What are the repurcussions of passing such a bill? I see them as being: 1) Erosion of the Feist fact vs. expression distinction; 2) Do we really need a brand new intellectual property regime for collections of facts?; 3) More so, if database copyrights are renewable with a modest investment in updating the database (as is the case in the EU), we've just afforded them not only copyright in facts, but a nearly perpetual copyright protection; 4) Barriers to obtaining factual information for creating new, expressive, copyrightable works should be low if we value the abilitiy to draw from the world around us to create; 5) As put well by Public Knowledge in a piece here: "[T]he mere assembly or aggregation of data, when not compiled or assembled in a creative matter, is outside the scope of Congress to protect under its copyright power as that power has long been understood." (however, Eldred overshadows); and 6) The fair-use exceptions for nonprofit educational, scientific and research institutions are very narrow and can be overcome with click-wrap licensing. (see a recent ALA bulletin here.)

What can you do? Write/call your congress-critters! The bill has now been forwarded to the full House committee on the judiciary (bill status).

UPDATE: from DRM Watch:

"At the same time, that does not mean that database publishers need federal legislation to protect them from database pirates. Most database publishers deliver their products with contracts that spell out terms of service, which include restrictions against copying; therefore, such publishers can go after copiers for breach of contract. Therefore, we concur with representatives from the library and other communities - and even some detractors of the bill, such as noted big-media sympathizer Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) - who say that the bill is little more than feel-good legislation in its current form and hence unnecessary."

UPDATE [20031026-18:40]: Added cite to Pam Samuelson and J. H. Reichman's "Intellectual Property Rights in Data?" 50 V and. L. Rev. 51 (1997).

Posted by joebeone at Octubre 26, 2003 06:42 PM | TrackBack