Re: ProCD v Zeidenberg,

At 10:10 AM 4/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Steven D. Jamar:
>>
>> So the "real" question may be should we protect sweat of the brow or
>> not? Only if that question is answered "yes" (and it appears that Mr.
>> Elin would so answer it) do these other questions materialize.
>
> Of course we should protect real labor. Someone did the work, they
> should be compensated. That's my point (see below). With today's
> technology, how much brow sweat did ProCD really do to compile their
> database? If company A hand types every phone number and company B
> scans the phone numbers, and company c simply aggregates the numbers
> for computer tapes, should the products be priced the same?
>
> Greg Elin
> elin[_at_]interport.net
>
> Travel the American Internet from Silicon Alley to Silicon Valley:
> http://www.totalny.com/live/ge

"of course we should protect labor" is not a given in general circumstances, at least beyond the anti-slavery amendment and minimum wage laws. More paerticularly, copyright is certainly not based on the protection of labor, but on the protection of "creations". Even in trade secret law, which would protect compliations if kept secret, it's not the effort in collection that is protected, but the resulting value to the owner of the customer list, formula, or whatever.

In terms of copyright law, a sonota that Mozart jotted down apparently effortlessly is just as protected as one that Salieri labored over for months. The labor's not the thing; the results are.

     <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
     Buford C. Terrell                             1303 San Jacinto
     Professor of Law                             Houston, TX 77002
     South Texas College of Law                 voice (713)646-1857
     terrell[_at_]stcl.edu                             fax (713)646-1677
     <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>