Re: ProCD v Zeidenberg, 908 F.Supp 640 (W.D. Wisc)

On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>
> At 10:53 4/2/96, Greg Elin wrote:
> >
> > I am not surprised at all. Copyright does not protect facts. Facts
> > are beyond the scope of copyright. I certainly sense something unfair,
> > something like cheating, in what Zeidneberg did.
>
> But wait. As the court point out, doesn't the fact that he did
> essentially what ProCD did (copied the "facts" from another
> publication) pretty much answer the fairness question?

[snip]

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996 Greg Elin then wrote:
>
> The real question remains, what labor did ProCD exert to assemble and
> present the facts on the CD-ROM? What is that labor worth in the
> marketplace? What laws are necessary to insure that another company
> cannot acquire without compensation (i.e., 'steal') ProCD's labor?

Wait a minute, who compiled the "facts" in the first place? wasn't it the telephone company? Didn't ProCD and DDS companie*s* both just make electronic derivatives of the PD portions of available phone books???

If we are concerned about *fairness* then shouldn't someone speak out for Bell Publishing Co.!?

I still wonder why the "Baby Bells" never responded with their own "Authorized CD". If they were price competitve, no one would buy an "outdated" derivative work from ProCd or DDS, would they???

and for those who focus *only* on ProCD (based on litigant) recall:

On Sat, 23 Sep 1995, Matt Zeidenberg wrote to us:
>

[snip]
> This company purchased copies of ProCD's product SelectPhone and
> DDA's product Phonedisc. These both purport to be complete listings
> for the USA. Both products attempt to impose a shrink-wrapped licence
> on the user.
>
> For five states, SMWS formed the union of the listings from both products;
> where the same number appeared in both listings I dropped one at
> (pseudo)random. In order to get listings from the products, SMWS used
> both programs.

[snip]

The ProCD database of PD info is NOT what was posted by SMWS! It was a combination of TWO databases of PD information to produce a THIRD database! This combination/"difference" was (i *assume*) an attempt to get a clearly PD and accurate database of PD info.??

Matt used the word "union", i think he meant the term "intersection" of the two databases? at least that is the process i think?? he describes. it is a bit confusing to me what he did for sure here, or why.

Does anyone know why DDS did not join ProCD in this suit against "SMWS"?

Charles Keller <keller[_at_]ra.msstate.edu> Received on Sun Apr 07 1996 - 22:35:10 GMT