Bill HR 3261

It sounds pretty bad to me, on general principles, even though I don't
think it actually affects us directly.

There are two ways something like this might affect us -- first, if it
inhibited our ability to gather information, and second, if it
inhibited our ability to share information.

On the first, there's a specific exception in 4(b) for a "NONPROFIT
EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS" -- that's us.

On the second, people who reuse our information do so with our
authorization, and even if they reuse a derivative, they are reusing
with the authorization of our licensee acting under the scope of their
license.

But notice this -- there was a time, in the no so very distant past,
when Wikipedia was *not* owned by a nonprofit, but was owned by a
for-profit corporation, Bomis.  Under this law, Bomis could have
gotten in trouble for people getting mere facts from Britannica's
online database of knowledge.

One problem I have with this law is semi-philosophical.  This law
appears to be an effort to overturn past Supreme Court decisions
relating to the copyright status of mere facts.  So, rather than
calling this a copyright law, the authors have expressly claimed that
it doesn't affect copyright.  But if it quacks like a duck, it's still
unconstitutional (in my opinion).

--Jimbo