|
|
|
Background
In
1996,the European Union mandated a new form of intellectual
property protection for the contents of databases. As
a result, any person or firm that expends substantial
resources in compiling data in the European Union has
a legal right to prevent anyone else from extracting
or reusing all or a substantial part of the contents
of the database for 15 years. For the last several years,
commercial database compilers have been seeking EU-style
legislation from the U.S. Congress. While acknowledging
the need to protect proprietary databases against parasitical
copying, USACM is concerned about the deleterious effects
that overprotection would have on the nation's research
and educational systems due to reduced access to and
use of factual information. Constriction of constitutionally
protected public domain in data is unwarranted.
ACM Statement on Legislative Efforts to Expand Protection for Collections of Data
USACM Activities
- Recently endorsed the Congressional
testimony of ACM Fellow William Wulf regarding
proposals to create additional legal protections
for data (facts and ideas) contained in a database.
USACM remains concernedthat new database proposals
could threaten the legitimate needs and expectations
of the research and higher education communities
and supports the principles articulated in Dr. Wulf's
testimony. (September 23, 2003)
- Joined a diverse collection of library, higher-education, and computing groups
in submitting an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in
Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox. The brief explains to the court the potential damaging impact of
reversing the legal precedent of leaving facts in the public domain where they can be incorporated into
new works. February 25, 2003
- Sent a letter
to the Georgia State Legislature to express converns regarding a bill to allow
a producer or publisher of a database unprecedented control over uses of information, including
the downstream use of facts. The letter addresses concerns with
Georgia State Senate Bill 214, Georgia Database Protection and Economic Development
Act of 2001March 25, 2002
- Sent Letter
to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and House
Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin expressing concern regarding congressional
consideration of new database protection legislation. The letter urged the
Chairmen to carefully consider the effects of restriction of "transformative
use" on nonprofit publishers, students, researchers and the general public.
The letter comments on database protection legislation
introduced in the 106th Congress,H.R. 354,
the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. April 3, 2001
- Letters expressesing concerns regarding H.R. 2281,
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
* ACM Letter to the Chair of
the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding concerns with H.R. 2281, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
* USACM letter
to Senator Snowe (R-ME) on the database provision. September 29, 1998
* USACM letter
to Rep Bliley on the circumvention and database
provisions. September 29, 1998
- USACM
letter, to House Judiciary Committee opposing H.R. 2652. The letter outlined
concerns with H.R. 2652, the
Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. March 5, 1998.
- Letters addressing concerns with
S. 2291, the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act.
* Opposition to S. 2291: DOJ letter.
August 4, 1998.
* Department of Commerce letter. August 4, 1998.
* Clinton Administration letter. August 4, 1998.
- Department of Justice US
memo on constitutional problems with H.R. 2652. The memo outlined
concerns with H.R. 2652, the
Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. July 28,1998.
- USACM letter
to Patent and Trademark Commissioner Bruce Lehman on WIPO
treaty on databases, November 21, 1996.
- Letter
from the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine
opposing the database treaty, October 9, 1996.
Related Articles and Sites:
|
|
|
|
