From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:55:41 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: WIPO Treaty:  Worse than CDA- Deadline 22 Nov 96
Message-ID: <199611110655.WAA23446@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 01:22 AM 11/11/96 +0000, attila@primenet.com wrote:
>                WIPO Treaty:  Worse than CDA
>                Deadline 22 Nov 96 for comment to Congress
>        WIPO was introduced this spring to Congress.  It is not 
>    understood by either the Clinton administration or the Congress and
>    few of the public are aware of the problem!
[snip]
>        I am deleting the bulk of the report for brevity, including only
>    the definition of the "database" as it applies to WIPO.
>
>-.WHAT IS A DATABASE? WHAT ISN'T A DATABASE?
>-.The treaty would protect "any database that represents a 
>-.substantial investment in the collection, assembly, verification, 
>-.organization or presentation of the contents of the database." 
>-.
>-.This term should be understood "to include collections of 
>-.literary, musical or audiovisual works or any other kind of 
>-.works, or collections of other materials such as texts, sounds, 
>-.images, numbers, facts, or data representing any other matter or 
>-.substance" and "may contain collections of expressions of 
>-.folklore." The "protection shall be granted to databases 
>-.irrespective of the form or medium in which they are embodied. 

Somebody must have said, once, that the winner in an argument is the one who 
gets to define the terms.  Notice how the term "protect" and "protection" 
are misused above. (not by Attila, of course; but by whomever he's quoting.)  

However, the term "protect" has long been misused by lawyers in just such a 
way.  "Monopolize" would be a more appropriate word under the circumstances.



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com