Exceprts from Floor Statement of Rep. George Brown.
Re HR 2652, Collections of Information Antipiracy Act.
May 19, 1998.
Source: Congressional Record.

...

It is my understanding that H.R. 2652 addresses only one aspect of the complex subject of adjusting intellectual property protection laws to meet the demands of the new digital age. Unfortunately, as I have indicated, it may be a flawed and controversial attempt, which should have not come up on the suspension calendar.

The problem is that the bill has not found yet a proper balance between protecting original investments in data bases and the economic and social cost of unduly restricting and discouraging downstream application of these data bases, particularly in regard to uses for basic research or education.

Some of these scientific data bases are extremely large and complex. For example, we are spending billions on an effort to characterize the human genome, and we have thousands of scientists working on it. A portion of that work only, and it may be a small portion, is either patentable or protected under copyright laws. The rest of it is going to be freely available. It may be that this legislation is going to cause considerable problem with that massive collection of research data. I hope that that is not the case, but I do not think anyone can tell you at this point whether it or is not.

Progress in science requires full and open availability of scientific data. New knowledge is built on previous findings and unfettered access and use of factual information. This bill will impede research by restricting the ability of scientists to draw on data, facts and even mathematical formulas from previous scientific work for the production of new and innovative work.

It is for this reason, Madam Speaker, that I ask that the bill be defeated on suspension, and, hopefully, brought back after further study.

H.R. 2652 addresses one aspect of the complex subject of adjusting intellectual property protection laws to meet the demands of the digital age. Unfortunately it is a flawed and controversial attempt, which should not have come to the Floor on the Suspension Calendar.

The problem is that the bill has not found a proper balance between protecting original investments in databases AND the economic and social costs of unduly restricting and discouraging downstream applications of these databases--particularly in regard to uses for basic research and education.

Progress in science requires full and open availability of scientific data. New knowledge is built on previous findings and unfettered access and use of factual information.

The bill will impede research by restricting the ability of scientists to draw on data, facts, and even mathematical formulas from previous scientific work for the production of new, innovative works. To date, these types of activities have not only been permissible, but expressly protected under copyright law and the fair use concept.

By granting unprecedented rights to ownership of facts--not just rights to the expression of facts and information, as is the case for copyright--the bill will certainly increase the costs of research, but more importantly, reduce the openness of exchange of scientific data and information and also reduce collaboration among scientists.

The provisions in the bill that purport to give exceptions for research and education uses are illusory--triggered only if users can show that the use will not harm actual or potential markets. This is far less `fair use' than under copyright law.

Also, there is no language for mandatory legal licenses, or other limitations, that would require providers of sole source databases to make data available for research, education, and other public interest uses on fair and equitable terms.

Many fields of inquiry that involve statistical compilations and analysis of raw data would be restricted by this bill, such as climate modeling and economic forecasting. Also, research activities involving collaborative sharing of large data bases, such as the sequencing of the human genome, would be adversely affected.

The stated objective of the bill is to protect against individuals stealing non-copyrightable commercial databases, and then taking away the market of the original compiler of the data. The reach of the bill goes far beyond this goal.

Alternative draft legislation that is narrowly based on misappropriation case law is being worked out by the communities with reservations about H.R. 2652. Such an approach would leave existing research and education uses of databases unchanged, while providing added protections for commercial, noncopyrightable databases.

Any legislative action to protect the contents of databases should proceed using a cautious, minimalist approach that balances the interests of creators, publishers, and users, and of society as a whole.

This is not the approach that was taken in developing H.R. 2652.

Despite concerns raised by libraries, research and educational institutions, commercial database companies, and computer and telecommunications companies, the bill has been brought to the floor as a non-controversial measure under suspension of the rules.

This procedure is inappropriate since it affords no opportunity for Members to offer amendments or present alternative approaches to address the many concerns that have been raised about the bill.

The House should reject H.R. 2652 in its current form, and work toward a compromise, such as the alternative I referred to, that will balance the concerns of the various communities of interest.