Subcommittee OKs Amended Database Bill
(March 18, 1998) An amended version of the Collections of Data Anti Piracy Act (HR 2652) was approved by the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property today. The bill was amended to accomodate some concerns of libraries, universities, and non profits, and was passed by voice vote without objection.
Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble (R-NC), "The goal is to create ever more collections, and more competition." The bill would give a data collection owner a cause of action against someone who extracts and uses that collection in commerce so as to harm the owner.
| Related Pages | HR 2652, original | HR 2652, amended | Bill Summary | Story: 2/12 hearing |
At a previous hearing of the Subcommittee testimony was heard regarding concerns and objections to the bill. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) stated that with the bill presented as an amendment, "we have cleared up a lot of the objections".
Changes from the original version include:
The following table compares and contrasts sections of the bill which were materially changed by the amendment.
Analysis
of Changes to HR 2652 |
|
Original Bill |
Amended Bill |
| Topic: Main Prohibition | |
| "Any person who extracts, or uses in commerce, | "Any person who extracts, or uses in commerce, |
| all or a substantial part of a collection of information gathered, organized, or maintained by another person through the investment of substantial monetary or other resources, | all or a substantial part, measured either quantitatively or qualitatively, of a collection of information gathered, organized, or maintained by another person through the investment of substantial monetary or other resources |
| so as to harm that other person's actual or potential market for a product or service | so as to harm the actual or potential market of that other person, or an assignee of that other person, for a product or service |
| that incorporates that collection of information | that incorporates that collection of information |
| and is offered by that other person in commerce, | and is offered or intended to be offered for sale or otherwise by that other person in commerce, |
| shall be liable to that person ..." | shall be liable to that person ..." |
| Treatment of Non-Profits and Educational Institutions | |
| Protection ... shall not extend to a governmental entity, whether Federal, State, or local, including any employee or agent of such an entity, | Protection ... shall not extend to collections of information gathered, organized, or maintained in the course of performing governmental functions other than education or scholarship, by or for a government entity, whether Federal, state, or local |
| The Court shall reduce or remit entirely monetary relief ... (if the) defendant believed ... that his or her conduct was permissible ... if the defendant was an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational, scientific, or research institution, library, or archives ... | |
| Statute of Limitations & Duration of Protection | |
| "No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this chapter unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued." (Protection term perpetual) | "No civil action shal be maintained under this chapter unless it is commenced with three years after the cause of action arises or claim accrues... (and) ... no ... action shall be maintianed ... more than 15 years after the investment of resources that qualified the collections of information for protection" |
| Definition of 'Potential Market' | |
| (None) | "The term 'potential market' means any market that a person claiming portection ... has current and demonstrable plans to exploit or that is commonly exploited by persons offering similar products or services incorporating collections of information." |
| Software Protection | |
| (Software exempted from protection under both versions.) | "A collection of information that is otherwise subject to protection ... is not disqualified ... because it is incorporated into a computer program." |
The bill enjoyed bipartisan support. Both Howard Coble and Ranking Minority Member Barney Frank (D-MA) praised the amended version.
The bill does not create a copyright interest in databases, because this would violate the element of "originality" required by Supreme Court cases. Instead the bill resembles a Lanham Act unfair competition rule. Silicon Valley's Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said that it still "it looks an awful lot like a copyright" and might thus be overturned by the courts.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute was passed by unanimous voice, and then the bill was approved by unanimous voice vote. Members present included Coble, Frank, Berman, Boucher, Canady, Conyers, Goodlatte, Lofgren, Pease, and Rogan. Members absent for the vote included Delahunt, McCollum, and Sensenbrenner.
The next step for the bill is the full Senate Judiciary Committee.