November 26, 2003

A Setback for the Second Enclosure Movement [1:39 pm]

From Scrivener’s Error: We Want Information — a discussion of the decision in Applied Technologies of Wisconsin, LLC v. WIREData, Inc., No. 03-2061 (7th Cir. Nov. 25, 2003) (Posner, J.)

This case is about the attempt of a copyright owner to use copyright law to block access to data that not only are neither copyrightable nor copyrighted, but were not created or obtained by the copyright owner. The owner is trying to secrete the data in its copyrighted program—a program the existence of which reduced the likelihood that the data would be retained in a form in which they would have been readily accessible. It would be appalling if such an attempt could succeed.

[...] From the standpoint of copyright law all that matters is that the process of extracting the raw data from the database does not involve copying Market Drive, or creating, as AT mysteriously asserts, a derivative work; all that is sought is raw data, data created not by AT but by the assessors, data that are in the public domain.

Plus, in dicta, we get some great Posner thoughts:

WIREdata is not a licensee of AT, and AT is not suing to enforce any contract it might have with WIREdata. It therefore had no cause to drag the licenses before us. But since it did, we shall not conceal our profound skepticism concerning AT’s interpretation. If accepted, it would forbid municipalities licensed by AT to share the data in their tax-assessment databases with each other even for the purpose of comparing or coordinating their assessment methods, though all the data they would be exchanging would be data that their assessors had collected and inputted into the databases. That seems an absurd result.

permalink to just this entry

December 2014
S M T W T F S
« Jun    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
posts

0.118 || Powered by WordPress