Subject: Issue re: Database and Collections of Information Act of 2003 From: clarkjc@xxxxxxx Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:52:22 -0500 |
Thanks, Dr. Trosow, for this intricate and clear explanation. It's gratifying to confirm that I'm not just a lousy reader of legislation. Not so gratifying to know that I not only missed ALA's original position on this bill, but also managed to be careless enough in checking their web site that I missed it in retropect! Jeff >Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 11:38:16 -0500 >To: digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >From: Samuel Trosow <strosow@xxxxxx> >Subject: Issue re: Database and Collections of Information Act of 2003 >Message-ID: <4049FE78.7030503@xxxxxx> > >Jeff Clark raises an important question in his March 4th posting. > >Section 2(1) defines 'collective work' as "a work, such as a periodical >issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, >constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled >into a collective whole." > >Section 2(3) defines 'compilation' as "a work formed by the collection >and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, >coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a >whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term `compilation' >includes collective works." > >The definition of 'databases' in section 2(5) defines 'database' and >provides a listing of exclusions in 2(5(B): > >"The term database does not include any of the following: > >(i) A work of authorship, other than a compilation or a collective >work." (bill cites all taken from thomas.loc.gov, enter H.R. 3261) > >By citing compilations or collective works as an exception to what is >excluded from the definition of database, the act indeed includes these >works within its broad scope, albeit in a roundabout and clumsy manner. > >This particular concern was addressed in a joint ALA-AALL- ARL-SLA letter >filed in opposition to the bill last Fall (available at >http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/lt09042003.html): > >"Relation to the Copyright Act. For the first time, the draft bill now >explicitly encompasses periodical issues, which are themselves covered >under the Copyright Act. This raises fundamental questions about the >relationship between this bill and the copyright law. It appears that if >this draft were to become law, the very same action (such as an >interlibrary loan) would be lawful under the Copyright Act but a >potential violation of the draft database legislation. This new approach >will cast a shadow over all of the exemptions currently in the Copyright >Act, thus necessitating a re-litigation of those provisions and a >court-provided clarification of which law governs when." > >The implications of this double coverage would be significant if the >bill is passed and allowed to stand, it's just one more reason to oppose >an otherwise very bad bill. > >Samuel Trosow >Assistant Professor >University of Western Ontario >Faculty of Law / Faculty of Information & Media Studies > =========== Jeff Clark Director Media Resources MSC 1701 James Madison University Harrisonburg VA 22807 clarkjc@xxxxxxx (email) 540-568-6770 (phone) 540-568-7037 (fax)
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Issue re: Database and Collections , Samuel Trosow | Thread | Call to Assembly: Internet Commons , Seth Johnson |
[Fwd: IPJ News: Consumers Rally at , Olga Francois | Date | Re: digital-copyright Digest 9 Mar , Miriam Nisbet |
Month |