Hacker News Reader

Comment by mhp | Hacker News Reader

"If Yale grants students access to data, the university does not have the right to specify exactly how students must view the data."

I disagree strongly with this statement. If the data is owned by Yale, they do in fact have the right to specify exactly how students must view the data.

Although it's frustrating to see copyright holders doing illogical or inefficient things with their copyrighted data, it is their right to determine the method and mechanism by which their data is consumed. Just because it is _possible_ to transform their data into a mashup, doesn't mean it's legal, ethical, or permissible. It doesn't matter if this transformation happens entirely within a viewer's computer, or if it happens on another server - if the copyright holder doesn't want their data to be transformed that way, it is their right.

View on HN

No it isn't. There is no such right.

The entire concept of copyright in the first place is artificial - there is no moral copyright. So the only rights you have are the ones copyright gives you, and no more.

Not to mention there is no database right in the US, so they don't even have a copyright on the course database in the first place! (They do on the description of the courses, but not on the list of them.)

Actually, separate moral rights on copyrighted works do exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

They likely do not apply to a University's course catalog and, but FYI moral rights are real.

Also, under US copyright law, all 'works' & 'creations' are automatically protected, and the creator owns the copyright. This very likely can and does apply to databases the same way it applies to art or music. It would be a really bad idea to assume you have the right to copy someone's database just because copyright law doesn't mention databases specifically! ;)

Those moral rights are the opposite of what I mean. They are restrictions on the copyright owner. The moral rights I meant are if copyright exists from a moral point of view rater than a legal one - and it doesn't.

> It would be a really bad idea to assume you have the right to copy someone's database just because copyright law doesn't mention databases specifically! ;)

It does mention it specifically. It specifically mentions that it doesn't exist. There is no database copyright in the US. (There is in other countries.)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_copyright

> They are restrictions on the copyright owner.

What do you mean? Moral rights do not restrict the Moral Rights holder in any way, and they do restrict the ways that any other person is allowed to present, re-present, or modify the work.

Moral rights can only restrict copyright holders when the copyrights have been transferred from the creator of the work to another party, and in that case, Moral Rights restrict all people who didn't author/create the work equally, it has nothing to do with who holds the copyrights.

> It [US copyright law] specifically mentions that it [database copyrights] doesn't exist.

You have a good point! I was at least partially, if not completely incorrect. :)

But, it would still be a bad idea to assume you have the right to copy someone's database. It might not be a violation of copyright law, but there's a good chance it is a violation of some law. The sui generis database rights link happens to give a separate reason for why it would be a bad idea to copy someone's database. :)

I also just had to check... ;) The text of US copyright law does mention databases twice. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf It specifically mentions, in definitions, that databases are not works of visual art, and that databases are not considered a "digital audio recording medium". It does not seem to specifically exclude databases categorically, but considering the language in the 'sui generis' article you linked, "Uncreative collections of facts are outside of Congressional authority". The keyword is 'creative', and if a database were shown to be the primary form of a "creative" work, copyright law may apply.

"This very likely can and does apply to databases the same way it applies to art or music."

No, that's not correct:

"Uncreative collections of facts are outside of Congressional authority under the Copyright Clause (Article I, § 8, cl. 8) of the United States Constitution, therefore no database right exists in the United States. Originality is the sine qua non of copyright in the United States (see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). This has not stopped database owners lobbying for the introduction of such a right, but so far bills to introduce it in the U.S. have been prevented by the successful lobbying of research libraries, consumer groups and firms who benefit from the free use of factual information."[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right#United_States

I disagree.

According to this line of logic, if I use Yale's data to find a good class, and I verbally mention said class to you, my roomate, I would be giving you a piece data in a way Yale does not sanction. Making a website that better shows the data is essentially just a large scale recommendation online.

Of course, it could be argued that I shouldn't be allowed to recommend classes to other people, but I think most people wouldn't want to go down that path. Oh you have something negative to say about our product? You aren't authorized to use information about our product, such as it's name and function.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com