new-monopoly.html (13450B)
1 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> 2 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> 3 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> 4 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays cultural access" --> 5 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> 6 <title>U.S. Congress Threatens to Establish a New Kind of Monopoly 7 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> 8 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/new-monopoly.translist" --> 9 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> 10 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> 11 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> 12 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> 13 <div class="article reduced-width"> 14 <h2>U.S. Congress Threatens to Establish a New Kind of Monopoly</h2> 15 <div class="thin"></div> 16 17 <p> 18 Companies that want monopoly powers to control public use of the 19 information we get from data bases are trying to pass a law this year 20 in the U.S.—creating, for the first time, a private monopoly 21 over repeating publicly known information. They are using the 22 “good bill, bad bill” method; the “bad” bill 23 is HR 354; the “good” bill is HR 1858.</p> 24 <p> 25 This method should be familiar. First, one legislator introduces an 26 outrageous bill, one that would give a large handout of money or power 27 to certain special interests and serves no legitimate public purpose. 28 This inspires a chorus of opposition from other special interests that 29 the bill would trample.</p> 30 <p> 31 So a second legislator introduces a more cautious bill, more clearly 32 written, with some safeguards, avoiding some gross abuses, offering a 33 smaller handout to a somewhat broader spectrum of special 34 interests—and still diminishing the public treasury or the public's 35 freedom.</p> 36 <p> 37 The second bill is typically praised for its “balanced” 38 approach, and interest groups that might oppose the general idea feel 39 obliged to support it, to make sure that the even worse first bill 40 won't pass. With little opposition remaining, the second bill passes, 41 and society takes one step for the worse.</p> 42 <p> 43 A few years later, the first legislator may propose another give-away. 44 If we keep meeting his sponsors half-way each time, over time they can 45 get as much as they like.</p> 46 <p> 47 This time, the “bad” bill is HR 354, which would 48 effectively allow facts to become private property, simply through 49 their inclusion in an electronic data base. Even mentioning more than 50 a handful of the facts from any data base in a publication would be 51 illegal, unless you could get them from some other source—often 52 impossible, since in many cases there is no other ultimate 53 source for a certain kind of fact.</p> 54 <p> 55 Consider for example the scores of professional sports games. The 56 score is counted in a computer, whose memory counts as a data base. 57 Under HR 354, regularly printing scores in a newspaper would become 58 illegal.</p> 59 <p> 60 HR 354 would probably give Network Solutions a permanent monopoly on 61 the Internet domain name data base, making any change in the handling 62 of top level domains impossible.</p> 63 <p> 64 Any computer program counts as a data base under HR 354. So if the 65 facts about the program's user interface and APIs can't be obtained 66 from anywhere else, any compatible program would be prohibited. This 67 would be devastating for the future of free software.</p> 68 <p> 69 Ominously, many collections of public records, maintained by companies 70 on contract to governments, would become property of those 71 companies.</p> 72 <p> 73 And West Publishing Company would regain its effective monopoly over 74 the data needed to file a legal brief in much of the U.S. West 75 maintains a data base of court decisions, and some courts require 76 briefs to cite these decisions using page numbers as they appear in 77 West's data base.</p> 78 <p> 79 West, seeking to prevent the necessary information from being 80 available other than through their expensive service, used to claim 81 that the pagination and page numbers were copyrighted, but a Federal 82 court ruled against them. The court said that these page numbers 83 don't result from creativity, so they are not copyrightable. But they 84 are indubitably a data base, so HR 354 would prohibit anyone else from 85 providing this data to the public—thus granting West a 86 permanent monopoly on the law itself.</p> 87 <p> 88 HR 354 would also interfere with scientific research, genealogical 89 research, publication of stock prices, and many other areas of life 90 and work. So it's no wonder that it has generated strong opposition. 91 The Supreme Court might reject the bill as unconstitutional, but no 92 one wants to rely on this. Hence HR 1858—this year's 93 “good” bill.</p> 94 <p> 95 HR 1858 explicitly avoids most of the outrageous problems. It 96 establishes a narrower kind of monopoly, permitting use of the facts 97 in a different kind of data base, or in anything other than an 98 electronic data base.</p> 99 <p> 100 Thus, you'll still be able to print game scores in an article, because 101 an article doesn't count as a data base. A program is not a data base 102 either, under HR 1858, so it will not create a new obstacle to writing 103 compatible software.</p> 104 <p> 105 HR 1858 also excludes data bases for running the Internet. (But not 106 the data bases that may some day be used for running future worldwide 107 systems, even if they are just as important as the Internet is today.) 108 It excludes data bases made by or for the Federal government. (But, 109 by default, it doesn't exclude those made by or for state 110 governments; this is a substantial loophole in HR 1858.)</p> 111 <p> 112 A wide range of organizations are supporting HR 1858—including 113 many universities and professional organizations. Some of the letters 114 of support show a clear desire for some kind of monopoly power.</p> 115 <p> 116 HR 1858 is much less harmful than HR 354—if we have to choose 117 between the two, we should prefer HR 1858. But should we have to 118 choose between a big loss of freedom and a smaller one?</p> 119 <p> 120 The advocates of these laws offer a reason, of course, for their 121 proposal to limit our freedom. They say that nobody will maintain 122 data bases without a monopoly over the contents. They have no 123 specific evidence for this claim; it is based on an article of faith: 124 a general assumption that nobody will do anything without a monopoly 125 over the results.</p> 126 <p> 127 Just a few years ago, people said the same thing about software—that 128 nobody would write programs without having a monopoly on 129 them. The Free Software movement has proved that this is not true, 130 and in the process, we have refuted that general assumption. 131 Selfishness is not the whole of human nature. One kind of 132 intellectual work, at least, CAN be done without a monopoly on the 133 results.</p> 134 <p> 135 But data bases are not software. Will anyone develop data bases 136 without a data base monopoly law?</p> 137 <p> 138 We know they will—because they already do. Many electronic 139 data bases are available now, and the number is increasing, not 140 decreasing. And many kinds of data base are byproducts or even 141 preconditions of other activities that people do for other 142 reasons.</p> 143 <p> 144 The data base companies can't deny this, so they threaten us with 145 future uncertainty. “Maybe we do this today, but ten years from 146 now nobody will do it any more, unless you give us special 147 privilege.”</p> 148 <p> 149 We don't know what will happen in ten years; neither do they. The 150 economic situation of the Internet is changing rapidly, and no one 151 knows where it is going. Perhaps, in 2009, commercial data bases will 152 disappear from the Internet. Or perhaps they will be very successful. 153 Perhaps networks of volunteers will maintain all the data bases anyone 154 might want. Perhaps advertising will provide a comfortable source of 155 revenue to any company that maintains a data base; perhaps a much 156 weaker law saying “If you redistribute our data base, you must 157 redistribute our ads too” would serve their interests almost as 158 well. Nobody knows.</p> 159 <p> 160 What we do know is that things will change; if a data base law is 161 passed this year, it will be obsolete a few years from now. But any 162 attempt to abolish it will be opposed by the data base companies, 163 which will protect their privileges by predicting the sky would fall 164 without them. They will say: “We exist, so the law must be 165 working.”</p> 166 <p> 167 It is folly, or worse, to lock in a restrictive policy this year, to 168 solve a problem whose existence is just speculation. A data base 169 monopoly will take away your freedom, it's a surrender to special 170 interests, it's hasty, and there is no clear public need for it. We 171 should instead let the Internet mature, and see what problems really 172 need to be solved.</p> 173 <p> 174 So if you are a U.S. voter, write your Congressman now. Say that if he 175 or she has a chance to vote on whether the data base bill should be 176 like HR 354 or HR 1858, to choose HR 1858. But then say, when the 177 data base legislation ultimately comes up for a vote, to vote against 178 it, whatever it says.</p> 179 <p> 180 I've written a sample letter that you can use, but remember that your 181 letter will carry more weight if you write in your own words. Send 182 your letter on paper; e-mail does not impress legislators, because they 183 know how easy it is to send. Be polite, but not timid, and try to 184 keep it under 20 lines. Please email your letter to 185 <a href="mailto:database-letters@gnu.org"><database-letters@gnu.org></a> 186 also.</p> 187 188 <blockquote class="emph-box"> 189 <p> 190 Dear Representative So-and-so, 191 </p><p> 192 Congress is considering laws to establish a new kind of monopoly on 193 electronic data bases. I am against the whole idea of this, because 194 it would restrict the freedom of computer users. Private interests 195 should not be allowed control over dissemination of facts that are 196 public knowledge. As a measure to promote business, this is 197 premature; the Internet is changing very fast, and passing any law 198 about this issue in 1999 would be foolish. 199 </p><p> 200 Multiple alternatives are being considered for this bill; HR 354 is 201 especially drastic and dangerous, while HR 1858 is less so. If you 202 have a chance to vote on the choice between them, please choose HR 203 1858. But when the data base monopoly bill ultimately comes up for a 204 vote, I ask you to vote against it, regardless of the details. 205 </p><p> 206 Sincerely,<br /> 207 Jane Q. Public 208 </p> 209 </blockquote> 210 211 <p> 212 There exists a <a 213 href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080906221815/http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cfm"> 214 list of senators</a> and a service to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080611003520/https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml"> 215 assist you in writing</a> to representative in the U.S. Congress [archived].</p> 216 </div> 217 218 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> 219 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> 220 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> 221 <div class="unprintable"> 222 223 <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to 224 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. 225 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 226 the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent 227 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> 228 229 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, 230 replace it with the translation of these two: 231 232 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality 233 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. 234 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard 235 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> 236 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> 237 238 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of 239 our web pages, see <a 240 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 241 README</a>. --> 242 Please see the <a 243 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 244 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations 245 of this article.</p> 246 </div> 247 248 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to 249 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should 250 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this 251 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. 252 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the 253 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the 254 document was modified, or published. 255 256 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. 257 Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying 258 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable 259 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including 260 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). 261 262 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers 263 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> 264 265 <p>Copyright © 1999, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> 266 267 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" 268 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative 269 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> 270 271 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> 272 273 <p class="unprintable">Updated: 274 <!-- timestamp start --> 275 $Date: 2021/09/19 16:26:24 $ 276 <!-- timestamp end --> 277 </p> 278 </div> 279 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> 280 </body> 281 </html>