Europe already offers protection for databases beyond that provided by more general copyright laws. In 1996, the European Parliament passed the Directive on the legal protection of databases. Since that time, the US has debated its need for an equivalent law.
The current US proposals allow a party to take a substantial part of any collection of information for private use, including scientific study or library research. It is only when use leads to material market harm that any liability might accrue, according to the Act.
The proposals represent a compromise position between large database providers such as Reed Elsevier, the owner of Lexis Nexis, and smaller technology groups who use and apply the databases. The compromise was approved by a sub-committee of the Jucidiary Committee in October last year.
At that time, co-sponsor of the Bill, Congressman Rep. Howard Coble explained:
"Under current law, anyone can copy a database and send it to millions of people, destroying the market for the database. In this environment, e-businesses will be hesitant to make their databases available on the internet for fear that they will be misappropriated by those seeking to take advantage of the lack of legal protection in this arena. Under the protection provided in [the Act] database producers will make their compilations readily available in a wide variety of formats by providing database compilers with legal recourse against those who steal their databases."
Whether the proposals will progress much further is uncertain, as the Bill still has to pass the Energy and Commerce Committee before it goes to the House of Representatives as a whole.
Lobby groups opposed to the measures are gearing up for a fight, claiming that existing legislation provides sufficient protection for database providers. Working together in a loose coalition, opponents of the proposals published a letter last week stating:
"Proponents of the bill have yet to offer a convincing case that existing federal and state laws, including federal copyright law, federal anti-hacking prohibitions, and a variety of state contract and tort laws, are insufficient to provide database producers with adequate protection".
The letter continued:
"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."
