Re: digital-copyright Digest 9 Mar 2004 16:00:00 -0000 Issue 348

["Miriam Nisbet" <mnisbet@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

For information about the latest developments on database protection
legislation, go to
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/washnews/news2004/13mar08.htm There
are now two database bills, the latest having passed the House Energy &
Commerce Committee last week.  

Miriam M. Nisbet
Legislative Counsel
American Library Association
1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW - #403
Washington, D.C. 20004-1701
Voice:  202-628-8410, x. 202, 
        or 800-941-8478, x. 202
Fax:     202-628-8419
e-mail:  mnisbet@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ala.org/washoff

>>> <digital-copyright-digest-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 03/09/04 11:00AM
>>>
digital-copyright Digest 9 Mar 2004 16:00:00 -0000 Issue 348

Topics (messages 779 through 779):

Issue re: Database and Collections of Information Act of 2003
	779 by: clarkjc.jmu.edu

Administrivia:

To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
	<digital-copyright-digest-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
	<digital-copyright-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To post to the list, e-mail:
	<digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:52:22 -0500
To: digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
From: clarkjc@xxxxxxx 
Subject: Issue re: Database and Collections of Information Act of 2003
Message-Id: <2802c92d.1dfb4a35.26f2d000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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)

------------------------------

End of digital-copyright Digest
***********************************