"Back to Database Protection Page"
Message to CNI-Copyright Forum from Alan D. Sugarman, October 30, 1997 WHO IS Coaltion ?Against Database Piracy. I am seeking further information about a coalition formed to support database protection legislation. At the October 23, 1997 hearing re Rep. Coble's database protection bill, a group called the Coalition Against Database Piracy (CADP) was circulating material in and outside the hearing room and appeared to be the primary front for the bills real proponents, Thomson and Reed Elsevier, whose lobbyists and counsel were also in the room For example, one flyer shows a cow with the caption "Old MacDonald had a Farm and on his farm he had a computer". Below, a bold print caption states' America's Databases Make a Difference. Protect America's Leadership. Protect America's Databases." The flyer also announced a demonstration: "See Databases at Work - Wednesday, October 22 12:00-2:00 PM in the Rayburn Building, Room 2105." So, apparently this industry group had its own show in the capital. That must take swag. Of the three people who testified at the hearing, one was Warren Publishing Co. on behalf of CADP [the speaker described their litigation WARREN PUBLISHING, INC. v. MICRODOS DATA CORP. (actually, based upon my reading of the 11th Circuit en banc case, it seems that the case was misdescribed. Read the Warren's testimony at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/4.htm and compare to the case at http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/93-8474.op.html )]. The first evidence of CADP we have was in 2/12/97 when Michael Clipper and Christopher Meyer registered as lobbyists for the organization. On 3/17/97, they issued a press release, describing Meyer and Klipper as counsel and announcing the new coalition. An article describing the release in EIPN states that the members include "the American Medical Association, the Information Industries Association, the McGraw-Hill Companies, Skinder-Strauss Associates, the Thomson Corp. [i.e., West], and Warren Publishing Co." In my view, the companies that carry the day on this issue at the IIA are Thomson, Reed Elsevier, and McGraw Hill. It was surprising to see the AMA on this list, for, apparently, in the WIPO fight, the AMA had written a letter in support of the db treaty, but, apparently this was done without the support of the main office of the AMA and I had though t the letter was withdrawn. One question I have is whether the AMA is still part of this. The other information I have gleaned is that Meyer was a former senior copyright counsel at the PTO and Lipper was the former chief lobbyist that the Association of American Publishers and a former Senate Judiciary Committee staffer -- so maybe this explains how they got the capital for their industry trade show display. Of course, sitting in the power position in the back corner opposite the door at the hearing on Oct. 23 was former Minnesota Congressman and West lobbyist Gerry Sikorski, who is listed on the IIA Web Site as being head of the IIA Information Infrastructure Policy. Sikorski a Democrat had teemed up with another ex Minnesota and influential Republican congressman in 1995 in the aborted midnight amendment to the Paper Work Reduction Act fiasco. See http://www.hyperlaw.com/hill3.htm. Head of the IIA Government Information Policy is Eric Massant, of Lexis-Nexis, who recently on this list sent out a notice about the Thomson/Reed Elsevier sponsored Tyson study, which study is also featured prominently on the IIA Web site. See http://www.infoindustry.org/ppgrc/ppgrc.htm Given the line up of CADP, it seems to be very much a creation of Thomson and the IIA and the IIA is driven by Thomson and Reed Elsevier on this issue. I would appreciate any information that anyone has on CADP and the present members and who is really driving this. I recall some other press releases and articles but cannot find them at the moment. I would also appreciate any information on related political contributions to the House Judiciary Committee. PS Note also that the second person testifying for the database bill was Laura Tyson who prepared a report commissioned by Thomson and Reed Elsevier on this topic, as she acknowledged in her testimony. The other person who testified for the bill was DR. ROBERT LEDLEY, PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY, BIOPHYSICS AND RADIOLOGY AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY AND PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION, apparently placed there to rebut the opposition by the National Research Council, the National Academy of Engineering and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His testimony was weak -- does anyone know how he ended up at testifying for this bill. He took the position that "In these cases, it is clearly the intent and interest of the government to assure protection of these databases by the organization being supported. Therefore, I think the bill should make clear that protection of governmentally funded collections developed by private parties is permitted, subject to the specific terms of any particular contract or grant." This was pretty extreme, and, I wonder if he has a contract to produce such databases for the goverment and is seeking protection for the datbases. Oh yea, wonder why Congressman Coble was so irate and took "umbrage" when I said his bill was special purposed legislation for Thomson and Reed Elsevier. Alan ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Alan D. Sugarman Federal Appeals on Disc tm CD-ROM :: :: President Opinions of US Courts of Appeals :: :: 1993 to Date - All Circuits :: :: HyperLaw, Inc. Registered Trademark :: :: P.O. Box 1176 DO NOT SHORT CIRCUIT YOUR CLIENTS :: :: New York, NY 10023 :: :: sugarman@hyperlaw.com 212-787-2812 212-496-4138(fax) :: :: :: :: http://www.hyperlaw.com :: :: :: :: /// /// /// [R] :: :: /// /// /// :: :: /// /// /// :: :: //////////////// /// :: :: //////////////// /// :: :: /// /// /// :: :: /// /// /////////// :: :: /// /// /////////// :: :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::