Database Copyrights

[sleipnir214]

I just saw this:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5072206.html

Is it just me, or does this sound like an extraordinarily bad idea?

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[MDXer]

I actually believe it is a good idea.

Data is at a premium in todays world and viewed by many as a product that is in demand. A number of companies exist that Sell their data after applying Demographics, Direct Market Area Mappings and any number of other pieces of related info.

Many companies invest a great deal of time, effort and money into securing datasources, and procedures needed to load data, ensure data quality, and present the data to users. I don't see where copying a companies Database differs from theft or plagarism. Would it be ok for me to go to mw.com and copy all the words and definitions and make my own dictionary?

While many data providers do offer some type of access to their data online at little or no cost they typically have another access model that does come with a price. Nothing would prevent Civic or Charity organizations from entering an agreement with data providers allowing them to use the data.

The law would enable companies to seek compensation or stop what they believe is abusive use of their systems.


"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck

 

[CajunCenturion]

I think there are several hurdles that need to be overcome.

First off, I don't think this is or can be a copyright issue. The purpose of a copyright is not to protect the information, but rather to protect the intellectual property of its creator, and at least with respect to the USA, is founded in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;,” and more fully outlined in specific copyright laws. As stated in the first paragraph, the proposal is targeted to cover factual information, such as courtroom decisions and professional directories. This type of information may already be in the public domain (such as courtroom decisions) and therefore are not copyrightable, and in other cases is not the result of discovery and/or invention, and therefore is not within the scope and intention of copyright protection.


The next hurdle deals with the actual ownership of the data? Who actually owns these facts? If it’s public data, then it’s open to the public. That fact that my names appears in a professional directory is a fact, but no one owns that fact, any more than someone owns the fact that 2+2=4 (at least in bases >=4). If you don’t own it, are not its creator or discoverer, then you cannot copyright it. What you can copyright however, is how and the format in which that data is presented.

MDXer does bring up some good points about the time and money that people and organizations have spent to collect, organization, verify, and publish information. When you buy an encyclopedia, you are not buying the facts, you are buying the compilation, organization, and presentation of that data, and the copyright applies to the compilation, organization and presentation of the data, but not the content. The content is public domain knowledge. If the content were the issue, then you wouldn’t have so many different brands of encyclopedias. What companies can then protect are the processes they use to manage the data, or the search engines, their report formats or other presentation methods, and perhaps some data, such as calculated values based on some proprietary formula. And they can sell usage of those products.

However, as far as going to mw.com and making your own dictionary, why can’t you? What ownership or protectionary right does mw.com, or any of the other myriad of on-line dictionaries, have over the words and their definitions. After all, how many dictionaries already exist? You want to do one more, go for it.

The focus should not be on how to protect the data, but how companies can protect their processes.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[jwenting]

While I doubt the law will help more data becoming available free of charge, it WILL help more data becoming available.

Many datasources are now not available at all for fear the investment in gathering them will be lost when people just copy it wholesale.

 

[lionelhill]

The other trouble with factual information is that it's hard to tell when it's been copied from a particular source: some facts (e.g. your telephone number ) look the same wherever I get them from, so how do you prove I copied them from somewhere I shouldn't have rather than found them out in my own right?

I thought the original article was very wibbly - hard to work out what is actually planned.

 

[CajunCenturion]

lionelhill - I agree it's hard to tell where it came from, but before you can even address the issue of proving where it came from, the source must establish a basis from which they can claim that you have no right to get that fact from them.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[lionelhill]

agreed. But hasn't there always been this problem? What about books of log-tables?