[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WIPO computing perspective (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: email@example.com (Gordon Irlam)
Subject: WIPO database treaty letter -- please sign
[Please feel free to forward this prior to Friday, 22nd November.]
The U.S. government is working to create an international treaty that
creates a dangerous new form of intellectual property that applies to
databases. A database is defined as any non-trivial collection of
facts and information. Copyright law already applies to databases.
This international treaty seeks to create new laws that limit people's
ability to make use databases. In addition, none of the the fair use
provisions that apply in the case of copyright would apply to database
under this treaty.
I've drafted the following letter on the proposed database treaty.
I'll be sending it to the government on Thursday. Please drop me or
firstname.lastname@example.org an email immediately if you are willing to
allow me to include your name on this letter. Please include a line
that looks like this:
Gordon Irlam, Software Engineer -- Mountain View, California
along with a comment if there is anything about you that is
distinguishing, and may be worth noting.
Since the database proposal is being proposed as an international
treaty by the executive branch, the usual congressional public review
processes have been bypassed. Unless this treaty is stopped,
irrespective of any independent assesment, congress will be required
to pass legislation that implements this treaty to fulfill
Currently the only opportunity for public comment on the proposed
treaty requires all comments be submitted by this Friday, November
Comments against the proposed treaty have been, or are being filled
National Academy of Sciences
Institute of Medicine
Association of Research Libraries
American Library Association
Consumer Project on Technology
The ad hoc Law Professors group
For more information on the treaty visit: http://www.public-domain.org/
[Draft letter. Still subject to minor editorial revision, however, no
substantiative changes will be made.]
Mr. Keith Kupferschmid
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Dear Mr. Kupferschmid,
We are responding to the request published in the Federal Register of
October 17, 1996 for Comments on the Chairman's Text of the WIPO
Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighboring Rights
These comments are directed at the Chairman's Text of the Basic
Proposal for the Substantive Provisions of the Treaty on Intellectual
Property in Respect of Databases. We do not seek to offer comments on
any of the other proposals on the table at this conference.
As software developers, we are at the forefront of the National
Information Infrastructure (NII) and the emerging Global Information
Infrastructure (GII), and as such hope we may be able to offer a
number of insights into some of the possible effects of this treaty on
the NII and GII.
We believe that the Internet represents the foundations of the GII,
and as such we look to the Internet to assess the effects of the
database treaty on the GII.
(1) The effects of the database treaty on the routing infrastructure
At the lowest level, the computers forming the Internet,
communicate through the exchange of packets of information. These
packets pass from one system to the next until they reach their
destination. Typically a packet needs to pass through around 20
different systems before it reaches its final destination.
Analogous to the postal system, each packet has an address printed
on it that identifies the final destination. These addresses are
effectively 9-digit numbers, and are known as IP addresses.
Unlike the postal system these addresses are not defined
geographically. Instead, a particular IP address might be located
anywhere in the world. Intermediate systems are aware of the
topology of the Internet, and know where the computer with a
particular IP address is located. Each intermediate system knows
who to forward a packet to next to ensure it reaches its final
Intermediate systems know where each IP address is located through
the exchange of what is termed routing information. The systems
exchange information identifying where each IP address is located.
Computers send messages to connected systems to saying: "I am
here", and the connected systems then collect up and send on this
information to other systems on the Internet. This information is
sent in the form of routing tables listing a set of IP addresses,
and for each IP address listing its current location.
These routing tables fall under the domain of the proposed
database treaty. As such, a network provider would be able to
claim ownership of the routing table constructed from the routing
information provided by its subscribers. Doing this would allow
the network provider to prevent, or control the way in which
others can make use of such routing information. Apart from the
network provider, there is no other practical method of obtaining
this routing information. Such routing information is essential
for network connectivity, and, as such, could be used as a price
lever by large network connectivity providers (PSI, UUNet, MCI,
Sprint) to force smaller providers out of the marketplace. An
example end-user license for the use of such routing tables might,
for instance, prohibit the exchange of the information contained
in the routing table with anyone other than a customer of one of
the large network providers.
(2) Effects of the database treaty on the domain name system
Users on the Internet aren't required to know the IP address of
the hosts to whom they are talking. Instead, they refer to
computers through textual names, such as "www.uspto.gov". The
Domain Name System is the component of the Internet responsible
for translating these textual host names into IP addresses to
which packets can then be sent.
The domain name system is administered by Network Solutions
Incorporated under a time limited contract with the NSF. Parties
contact Network Solutions telling them the names of new machines,
and Network Solutions publishes a database on the Internet that in
effect contains the IP address of each machine.
The domain name system meets the definition of a database given as
specified by the treaty. No practical way exists to obtain the
information contained in this database other than either directly
or indirectly through the data supplied by Network Solutions.
Since it was drafted prior to the treaty, it isn't clear from the
Network Solutions's contract with the NSF, whether Network
Solutions would be able to claim ownership of the DNS database, or
if the database belongs to the NSF. It seems plausible that
Network Solutions would be able to claim ownership. We are
however unable to make this claim with certainty.
The ability to claim ownership of databases such as the DNS
database could have a potentially severe chilling effect on the
Internet. Network Solutions position as sole provider of the DNS
database would enable them to charge a high price for access to
it. This information contained in this database is fundamental to
a user's ability to navigate around the Internet, and essentially
Network Solutions would end up owning the Internet.
It seems vital to us that in evaluating the effects of this
treaty, possible serious real world ramifications such as this
must be very carefully analyzed and understood.
(3) Effects of the database treaty on Internet search services
There are a number of Internet search services which users use to
find information on the Internet. Examples of popular search
services today include Alta Vista, Excite, Infoseek, and Verity.
Information on the Internet is contained in individually owned and
managed repositories called web sites. Each web site contains
The search services work by visting each web site on the Internet,
retrieving the site's contents, and from the contents constructing
an index of the information contained on the web site. To perform
a search, a user types in a few key words. The search service is
then able to use its indices to return to the user a list of all
web sites containing the specified words. The search services do
not return the contents of the indexed web sites, but merely tell
the user the names of the relevant web sites.
The generation of an index for a web site currently does not fall
under the scope of the Copyright Act. Under the proposed database
treaty, each website on the Internet fully meets the definition of
a database. And, under this treaty the ability to construct an
index of a web site, which of necessity involves retrieving the
information from the web site would appear to fall under the
"right to authorize or prohibit the extraction" terms of the
It is impractical for search services to gain permission to index
every web site on the net, and as a result the only options would
be for search services to either flout the law, hoping that their
infringements won't be prosecuted, or to cease providing this
valuable service to the users of the Internet.
We hope these comments help highlight some of the serious issues
raised by the proposed database treaty. We believe the treaty has
been developed through abstract theoretical considerations, and that
many of the practical consequences of this treaty have not been
If recent U.S. court decisions make it necessary to make changes in
database protection law, we believe this should be achieved through
carefully considered legislative changes to the U.S. Copyright Act.
No form of Sui Generis protection is desireable, and especially not
one achieved via an international treaty. We feel it will only be
appropriate to consider an international treaty defining the scope of
protection for databases if and when an acceptable set of changes have
been made to the U.S. Copyright Act.
The WIPO database treaty was based on an inadequate understanding of
the scope of its applicability and its resulting effects. We find the
treaty to be ill-considered and inappropriate. In view of the effect
it would have on the Internet and the future U.S. computing
infrastructure, we urge the U.S. work to have this treaty removed from
further consideration at the WIPO conference.
Thank you for considering our opinions.
Internet Technology Analyst -- Mountain View, California
L. Peter Deutsch
ACM Software System Award co-recipient
President, Aladdin Enterprises -- Menlo Park, California
Director, Cygnus Support -- Mountain View, California
Luther Welsh, Jr.
President, NDA Technologies, Inc. -- Tustin, California
President, Coffeehaus Networks, Corp. -- Boston, Massachusetts
Rodney H. Kay
President, Kay Communications -- Tampa, Florida
CEO, Newberg Webcenter -- Newberg, Oregon
President, Plain Aviation, Inc. -- Nashua, New Hampshire
Research Scientist -- Cambridge, Massachusetts
Author of "Internet Marketing", published by John Wiley & Sons
Director, FutureLink -- San Francisco, California
Director of Production, LVL Interactive -- Santa Clara, California
Staff Engineer, Sun Microsystems -- Menlo Park, California
Graduate Student & Consultant -- Pasadena, California
David S. Miller
Software Engineer -- East Brunswick, New Jersey
Systems Analyst -- Mountain View, California
Senior Network Consultant -- Cupertino, California
System Software Engineer -- San Francisco, California
Software Project Manager -- Oakland, California
Webmaster, Catholic Charities -- San Jose, California
Software Engineer -- California
Graduate Student -- Pasadena, California
Technical Support Supervisor -- Durham, North Carolina
Stanley T. Shebs, Ph.D.
Software Manager -- Mountain View, California
Internet Consultant -- Fox River Grove, Illinois
Law Student -- Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Network Analyst -- Mountain View, California
Software Architect -- San Francisco, California
Lecturer, Computer Science Division, University of California,
Berkeley -- Berkeley, California
Software Engineer -- Mountain View, California
Software Engineer -- Palo Alto, California
Richard Swan, Ph.D.
Computer Scientist -- Portola Valley, California
Software Engineer -- San Jose, California
<other names to be added>
To add your signature please send it to email@example.com