Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act

Dcima

[volatilegx]

HR 3261 (Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act - DCIMA)

This was mentioned in another post, but I think it deserves a thread of its own. There is an excellent article on this subject here: [writ.news.findlaw.com...]

The DCIMA is a danger to freedom of the press in this country, as well as a danger to the Internet itself. It would restrict the free transfer of information by giving companies the ability to own the rights to facts that they collect in databases.

Currently, intellectual property law does not protect data in this fashion. Doing so would practically give companies a "monopoly on the truth", and allow them to restrict the dissemination of information that they "own".

[rogerd]

Thanks for pointing this out, volatilegx. I guess whether you like or dislike this law depends on whether you are a content creator or borrower. If I spent a few hundred (or a few thousand) hours creating a database of, say, every business in my state by telephone or in-person research, I wouldn't be happy if someone downloaded my listing and used it on their site. If they wanted to expend the same effort I did to generate a similar list, of course, that would be fine with me - I could hardly stop them.

If I created databases (I don't), I'd seed them with a few errors or false listings to expose those who would profit from my effort.

[Ralph_Slate]

This law is bad because it's too far-reaching. Using your example, you would not even be able to compile your list without directly visiting every business, because any published list anywhere would be copyrighted.

Unfair business practice laws can in theory be used to stop an unethical practice such as taking someone else's database and then setting it up to compete against them. This law would basically copyright any significant amount of data, and would lock it down for a lot longer than you or I would be alive.

Ralph

[olias]

In the EU we already have the Database Directive which I believe is kind of similar and has raised some issues, such as here [webmasterworld.com...]

Oh well, better start ripping some US databases while it is still legal if unethical to do so. ;)

[mgream]

Just a note regarding the last few comments,

in the EU, database protection affords only 15_years of protection, not the full life+70_years: so the level of protection is not high. the protection is renewed with each "substantial" alteration to the database, which hasn't been fully fleshed out.

the quoted message from 2002 re. deep linking is disingenuous: as most of us webmasters know, deep linking is an issue even without database style protection: the main issue with deep linking is wrt. ToS of the linked-to site, and bypassing the structure of the linked-to site and thus economic impact by way of lost advertising or some form of content misappropriation.

i think the database style protection is a good thing _if_ the parameters surrounding it represent a good social bargain for the effort involved in creating a database.