IP: more on BILL TO LIMIT DATABASE PIRACY INTRODUCED

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>To: Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>Subject: [T-142 (Coble)  BILL TO LIMIT DATABASE PIRACY INTRODUCED 
>Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:30:17 EST
>From: Joshua Lederberg <jsl@rockvax.rockefeller.edu>
>
>Dave, on this subject, here is the testimony I gave Thursday
>
>Feel free to disseminate to interesting-people if you think
>that is warranted.
>   Josh
>
>
>                              Oral Testimony
>
>                             Joshua Lederberg
>                            President-emeritus
>                          Rockefeller University
>
>                               18 March 1999
>.fi
>
>My name is Joshua Lederberg. I am grateful to Chairman Coble for this
>opportunity to comment on the "Collections of Information Antipiracy Act"
>on behalf of the Academies and the AAAS. Our written testimony for the
>record will elaborate on the legal issues.
>
>With my own voice, I offer you the perspectives of a professor and former
>president at Rockefeller University; from a long career as researcher in
>molecular genetics, and bioinformatics; as an adviser to government science
>agencies and scientific publishers; and not least as a creator and active
>user of both commercial and nonprofit scientific databases. I remain an
>adviser to such enterprises, but I am here formally representing only the
>Academies and AAAS.
>
>Access to and use of factual data is essential to furthering our
>understanding of nature, to medical and technical progress, and to the
>validation of scientific claims. Indeed, the currently thriving public
>domain for data, fostered by government policies that nourish research and
>guarantee full and open access to data, benefits all downstream users,
>including the commercial database industry.
>
>At this time, barring instances of gross piracy, there is no crisis in the
>development of new databases: commercial or otherwise. Significant legal,
>technical, and self-help protection measures to protect proprietary
>databases are already available. We support the adoption of new diplomatic
>initiatives and legal measures to address egregious wholesale database
>piracy.  However, we are opposed to responses to those grievances which go
>beyond solving that problem, and would erect unprecedented and unjustified
>new rights in factual data.  These would undermine our nation's successful
>research and education system, and put a heavy hand on the scale of
>legitimate competing interests.  We appreciate the two changes that were
>made to H.R. 354 since last year's bill, but along with the Administration
>and other notable critics, we find the legislation as currently proposed
>still needs substantial remediation.
>
>Our objections to H.R. 354 include:
>
> o   An overly and unnecessarily broad scope of protection for factual data
>-- one that would supersede copyright for collections of works of
>authorship;
>
> o   An insufficient carveout for not-for-profit scientific and educational
>users;
>
> o   An incomplete government data exemption, particularly for government
>databases disseminated by the private sector;
>
> o   The retroactive application of the legislation;
>
> o   The unduly long term of protection in light of the breadth and depth
>of the scope of protection;
>
> o   The blanket prohibitions on traditionally legitimate commercial
>value-adding uses;
>
> o   The lack of reasonable limitation on the inordinate market power
>conferred by this legislation on sole-source data providers;
>
>and
>
> o   Absent or vague definitions of important terms.
>
>
>Together with a broad cross-section of research, education, library and
>consumer groups, as well as many commercial publishers and database
>providers, we would prefer alternative legislation such as "The Database
>Fair Competition and Research Promotion Act of 1999" that:
>
> o   Targets database piracy by focussing on true unfair competition
>principles, without creating unprecedented new property rights in data and
>unwarranted control in downstream uses of data;
>
> o   Maintains a reasonable balance between the interests of database
>producers and users, including legitimate and economically important
>value-adding activities;
>
> o   Preserves essential public interest uses, including customary
>scientific, educational, and library activities;
>
> o   Adheres to all Constitutional principles; and
>
> o   Provides protection against monopolistic pricing by sole-source data
>vendors in situations where competition breaks down as a preferred approach
>to balancing economic interests.
>
>If this simpler and properly focused alternative is not taken, then a much
>more complex bill, like the one that was in the course of being drafted in
>the Senate Judiciary Committee negotiations last summer, would need to be
>used. The Academies and the AAAS remain committed to working with Congress
>on developing a well reasoned and balanced database protection bill that
>serves the interests of our nation.
>Thank you.