By a 16-7 vote, the House Judiciary committee approved an intellectual property bill that had been opposed by Amazon.com, AT&T, Comcast, Google, Yahoo and some Internet service provider associations.

The proposal, backed by big database companies such as Reed Elsevier and Thomson, would extend to databases the same kind of protection that copyrighted works such as music, literature and movies currently enjoy. Its supporters say that such protection is necessary to stop rivals from extracting information from proprietary databases like Reed Elsevier's LexisNexis service instead of going through the far more expensive process of compiling it themselves.

The loosely organized technology coalition opposed to the proposal had stepped up its lobbying efforts in the days leading up to the committee vote, joined by library and civil liberties groups.

"Proponents of the bill have yet to offer a convincing case that existing federal and state laws, including federal copyright law, federal antihacking prohibitions, and a variety of state contract and tort laws, are insufficient to provide database producers with adequate protection," the coalition said in a letter last week. "They have certainly failed to demonstrate a problem that would justify the fundamental and constitutionally suspect changes to our nation's information policy called for in the legislation."

One of the most vocal opponents of the bill has been the venerable U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which argued that database owners already have the ability to protect their property through contracts and terms-of-service agreements. In its own letter to Congress, the Chamber predicted that a financial analyst with access to Dun & Bradstreet databases could violate the law by including that information in a report prepared for a client, as could a research chemist who wishes to reproduce information on the effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals.

The Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act of 2003 does not include criminal penalties. Rather, it allows the database owner to sue in civil court "any person who makes available in commerce to others a quantitatively substantial part of the information in a database." There are limited exemptions for educational and research organizations and for journalists.

The bill, backed by Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., also is controversial because, critics say, it would sidestep a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said facts could not be copyrighted.

Wednesday's vote follows a 10-3 vote last October in a subcommittee. Now the measure likely will go to the House floor in preparation for a possible vote.

send back a terminator

Another example (among many) of copyright malpractice has to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. Claiming "private ownership [of the footage]," the major broadcast networks have refused to show the two planes ramming into each of the Twin Towers, in effect using copyright law as their excuse to try to drive the horrors of 9-11 out of sight and out of mind, all this as part of the overall bid to defeat Bush in November (again, I'm no fan of the man, but . . . ). An article I stumbled on the 'Net, found on http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12476 gave the details on this whole controversy of Bush's using some of the footage in his campaign ads, and shows how this development has damaging implications for future historical events as they unwind (i.e. the lobbying campaign by the media to have news footage fall under the fascistic copyright laws), thus making it far easier for the major media to further manipulate and twist the news as they wish. I bet Coble the copyright stooge would support THAT type of initiative as well . . .

Wow, copyrighting facts. I better submit my forms for my colar of the sky database. Certainly no one else should be allowed to use the information I gathered without paying for me work.

this won't end untill one cartel, or groups of cartels control all access to the internet

This wont end until we vote the garbage out!! This was a congressional attack, folks.. and the sooner we get organized to combat it, the better..

BOYCOTT. EDUCATE. REGISTER. VOTE.
ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

Brick and mortar against digital.

In terms of what it means.it sucks..however all I can say is that serves em right in a way. Those same companies should have started lobbying against these new kinds of laws right from the start.

Now I bet ya half a f*ck they will find out that it isn't just going to be the lowly consumer who will be affected by these unconstitutional bill that are being concocted by a self serving media bought government. They are going feel it too in many ways to come if they don't start stepping up to the plate more often.

good luck getting it passed. this bill is another example of bullS@*%t being produced by industries who already make plenty of money trying to edge out perfectly fair comepetition.

I'm sick of all these companies jumping on the DMCA bandwagon and screaming like children. "Me, too. Me, too. I want to be protected. Hey, you're on my property!"

I am sorry for being off topic, but I have a question and I think this is the best place to ask:

My gfs dad wants to buy a new computer. I build my own so I don't know which ones come as "craputers" now. I figure you guys know better than anyone which brands are safest to buy as far as spyware, built in crap, etc. Any advice?

Thanks in advance.

If it's in a box and on a shelf it is a craputer.

Build the man one for God's sake. It's cheaper anyway.

where do i go to get my data copyrighted?

Gothic-Angel
Build the man one for God's sake. It's cheaper anyway. what he said

Vote Coble out!

Avoid HP/Compaq.

Agreed. Avoid HP/Compac.

Also avoid E-machines...

Consider buying on-line. You'll get more for your money. Dell is decent. There isn't TOO much extra crap installed. Alienware is nice, has hardly any crap installed, I think, but they are a tad bit pricey.