| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments/Opinions/Suggestions (Fwd: FYI--Congressional action on database legislation)Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 12:31:04 -0400 From AGU legislative newsletter 5/28: **************************************************** On May 20 the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property marked up and approved by voice vote H.R. 354, the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. The full Judiciary Committee approved the measure by voice vote six days later. H.R. 354 is this year's reincarnation of H.R. 2652 which passed the House last year but failed to move in the Senate (see ASLA 98-13 for background on the bill and its legislative history http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/asla/asla-list). The explosive growth of electronic databases in modern-day commerce prompted the legislation, which has sparked keen interest among Earth and space scientists who also depend heavily on electronically-accessible data. In a nutshell, H.R. 354 prohibits the extraction or use in commerce of a substantial part of a collection of information, which includes electronic databases, that will cause harm to the primary or related market of the person who put the collection together. The phrase "primary or related market" marks a change from an earlier version of the bill, sponsored by subcommittee chair Howard Coble (R-NC), which referred to the "actual or potential market." The change is at first glance subtle, but was included in a substitute amendment to the bill to appease many in the education, scientific, and library communities worried about how their activities could affect a "potential market." Coble's original bill allowed for the extraction and use of information in a database for "reasonable uses," including educational, scientific, or research, as long as that use did not harm the actual or potential market for the product or service. In H.R. 354, a collection of information is defined as information, including works of authorship, that has been collected and organized for the purpose of bringing discrete items of information together in one place or through one source so that users may access them. Subcommittee Chair Coble's bill is intended to protect the cost and effort that goes into creating these databases, and provide an incentive for developing new ones. Coble has also worked to address fears that the bill would upset the balance between open access to data and adequate protection that the scientific community is accustomed to. Government databases or those produced by private contractors for the government, for example, are exempted from protection in the bill. A new bill introduced on May 19 by Thomas Bliley (R-VA), Chair of the powerful House Commerce Committee, adds an interesting twist to the debate. H.R. 1858, entitled the Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act of 1999, has a different focus than H.R. 354 reflecting the Commerce Committee's desire to promote electronic commerce rather than the Judiciary Committee's history of protecting intellectual property and copyright. Nonetheless, the bill overlaps with H.R. 354 by forbidding the sale or distribution of database copies, when the seller intends to compete with the original database owner. Scientists are allowed to duplicate information in databases so long as they are not engaged in a consistent effort to compete commercially with the database owner. Coble's bill has momentum; having cleared the full Judiciary Committee it now awaits floor action. But the long arm of the Commerce Committee, which tends to claim jurisdiction over almost anything before Congress, means that supporters of H.R. 354 may have to work with Chairman Bliley and his bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 1858. The text of both bills is available via http://thomas.loc.gov/. -------------------- | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||