Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:06:08 PM william_f:Welcome. I'm William Fisher. This is the first of the plenary discussions of the course. Because it's our first, we will undoubtedly experience some technical difficulties. Please be patient -- and at the end of the session, please send us suggestions concerning how we might run these sessions more effectively.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:06:15 PM moderator_michelle_s:We're going to hold the discussion here in the lobby, due to some technical difficulties in the Plenary Discussion room.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:07:26 PM william_f:We're talking with Tom Bruce, who created and runs the Legal Information Institute. He will discuss with us the polciy issues raised by linking, framing, and metatags. Hello Tom.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:07:39 PM thomas_b:Hi, Terry
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:08:01 PM william_f:Here's the procedure: Please don't submit a question until one of us indicates that he has finished speaking with a ??
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:08:24 PM william_f:So, Tom, can you begin by explainign a bit about the LII???
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:08:28 PM william_f: //
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:08:31 PM thomas_b:Sure
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:08:45 PM thomas_b:The LII is the oldest law site on the Web, and one of the largest.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:09:03 PM thomas_b:In fact, I believe we were the first discipline-specific site outside the sciences.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:09:19 PM thomas_b:We publish law on the Net, and we also act as Internet and business consultants
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:09:30 PM jorfasharvardedu:Hello, Professor Fisher and friends. Pleased to meet you. This is CK Jor.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:09:41 PM thomas_b:for a number of legal-info providers including Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis, Folio Corporation
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:09:54 PM thomas_b:and a bunch of dead-tree publishers.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:10:13 PM thomas_b:We also wrote and distributed the late and unlamented Cello, which was
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:10:23 PM thomas_b:the first browser for MS-Windows.??
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:10:52 PM diane_c:thomas, are you supporting the data protection intiatives in congress?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:11:05 PM william_f:Considerable experience. Does your organization have any experience with linking or framing?//
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:11:26 PM thomas_b:I'll take William's question first (he the prof)
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:11:54 PM thomas_b:Yes, we do have experience with linking and framing issues. Our stuff has occasionally been
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:12:05 PM thomas_b:linked to without attribution, which is sort of painful.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:12:20 PM thomas_b:We don't have the same sort of commercial stake which was set out in the
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:12:33 PM thomas_b:hypothetical, though, as we don't take banner ads.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:12:57 PM thomas_b:What I do want to point out, though, is that more academic traditions involving
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:13:09 PM thomas_b:attribution also have monetary consequences.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:13:32 PM thomas_b:The hypothetical turned into a sort of argument over a Divine Right to Advertise,
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:13:42 PM thomas_b:but the real question is one of attribution.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:13:58 PM thomas_b:The LII funding turns on our reputation, which is damaged or at least not enhanced
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:14:07 PM thomas_b:when people use our stuff without crediting us.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:14:35 PM thomas_b:And so we have been fairly sharp with folks who do that. Usually it has not been malicious. //??
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:14:41 PM thomas_b: //
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:14:45 PM thomas_b: ??
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:15:01 PM william_f:Do I take it, then, that you have no objection to linking or framing -- as long as you are given fair credit -- and therefore that you don't support -- as Dinae asked --the database initations in Congress now?//
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:15:12 PM diane_c:What "stuff" are you referring to? I see caselaw and statutory materials on your site. Is that "your" stuff?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:15:36 PM thomas_b:No, I don't. I think they are terminally slanted in favor of copyright holders.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:15:45 PM diane_c:Your stuff seems to be a lot of links to other people's stuff.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:16:14 PM djennings_m:TV seems to have solved the question of attribution with placing their mark in the corner of the screen. Why can't you do that? Then you would have attribution.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:16:42 PM thomas_b:Whoa. One at a time, Diane first.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:17:11 PM thomas_b:If you look a bit more carefully you'll see that most of the information we offer is in fact on our site, physically,
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:17:23 PM thomas_b:and that we are responsible for its structuring and markup,
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:17:35 PM thomas_b:which we believe in most cases (that of the US Code stands out)
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:17:43 PM thomas_b:to be a significant value add.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:17:59 PM thomas_b:Obviously we don't assert copyright in any formal sense over underlying public
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:18:39 PM diane_c:I think you have a fabulous site. You are performing a wonderful serviice by collecting references and resource material. Thomas, I could do a search on Findlaw and come up with the same materials. Would that be an infringment of your attribtution right??
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:20:02 PM william_f:Let's return, for a moment, to the case where linking or framing does implicate a commercial site -- and therefore does threaten some advertising interests. In those cases, some people have suggested that framing and linking is problematic -- but that technological solutions exist -- and therefore that the law is not necessary???
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:20:47 PM william_f:Tom, it appears, has been locked out of the site -- and will be back on in a minute.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:21:22 PM william_f:While he's logging back on, perhpas it would be most helpful to collect some questions from you all -- which he can take in order when he returns???
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:21:48 PM cetompkins:The question is -- is private discipline in applying technological solutions adequate or are public sanctions required
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:22:48 PM william_f:Tom is almost back on line (ah, the trials of new technology). Other questions in the meantime?//
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:23:05 PM diane_c:I would address the question of "threat" to commercial interests. When there is a technical solution, it would seem to reduce the threat.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:23:08 PM thomas_b: (pant, pant) I'm here with you.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:23:22 PM djennings_m:How does it make a difference that the site is commercial for violating the laws - doesn't commercial activity only add to the penalty? Shouldn't the long held right of protection of the identity of source be maintained - cyberspace or not?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:23:58 PM diane_c:Commercial activity raised a question of misappropriation of revenue. Non-commercial sites couldn't use that argument
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:24:19 PM diane_c:What long held right to protection of identity?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:24:42 PM thomas_b:I think he's referring to the traditions surrounding attribution.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:24:59 PM diane_c:I repeat my question
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:25:02 PM djennings_m:The law has long held that trademan have been able to identify source of goods and services with a mark
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:25:23 PM diane_c:ah, trademark not copyright attribution?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:25:34 PM djennings_m:Yes
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:26:08 PM thomas_b:I want to go back to the question raised by cetompkins
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:26:26 PM thomas_b:for a moment, because I think the discussion of this issue which took
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:26:39 PM thomas_b:place in the threaded area showed something interesting about
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:26:54 PM thomas_b:how we behave when confronted by these sorts of problems in a
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:27:03 PM thomas_b:specifically technological context.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:27:20 PM thomas_b:In this particular instance, it is probably enough (IMHO) to apply private
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:27:33 PM thomas_b:discipline in the use of technological solutions
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:27:53 PM thomas_b:because we've got the technology to do it, and it requires no great
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:27:58 PM thomas_b:knowledge to use it.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:28:10 PM thomas_b:Two points though:
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:28:28 PM thomas_b:I'm wary of generalizing from this particular to a more general assertion that the answer
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:28:38 PM cetompkins:And, presumably, there would be liability for failure to use the technology?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:28:40 PM thomas_b:to problems generated by technology is more technology.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:29:18 PM thomas_b:And (point 2) I'm especially wary of any claims that there are "natural" analogies
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:29:31 PM thomas_b:to be made between, say, legal rules and technical standards.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:30:02 PM thomas_b:Herr Fisher would probably accuse me of making a legal process argument here
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:30:17 PM thomas_b:but the fact is that law should go beyond a simple rulebook approach
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:30:24 PM thomas_b:and technical standards shouldn't.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:30:29 PM thomas_b: //
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:30:31 PM thomas_b: ??
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:30:37 PM william_f:Can you be more specific concerning the kinds of technological solutions that could be used to prevent improper or execessive linking or framing? Can thos technologies be used excessively -- to prevent kinds of connections on the web that we would wish to leave open? In other words, should there be an analogue to the fair use doctrine -- privileging a certainamount of nonpermissive framing -- that would override the technological barriers? If so, how would it be administered?//
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:31:36 PM thomas_b:Sure. One technique would be to embed Javascript which simply flashed a message
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:31:52 PM thomas_b:to any one linking to the page from a location other than the publisher's own server.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:32:06 PM thomas_b:Or from specified locations belonging to known bad guys.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:32:28 PM thomas_b:Indeed one might turn that into a sort of counterattack against specific linker/framers
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:32:52 PM thomas_b:you don't like, referring the unwary reader to a lecture on Ethics and Moral Philosophy.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:33:00 PM thomas_b:For instance. //??
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:33:05 PM thomas_b: ???
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:33:23 PM stefan_b: So what does happen when you are not using this technology?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:33:38 PM thomas_b:Now, of course they can be used in a manner just as annoying as the original framing.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:33:40 PM diane_c:Why not just move your ads to the back pages?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:33:43 PM cetompkins:Although, wouldn't embedding Javascript in material being accessed by another server be easily defeated by spoofing?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:34:09 PM djennings_m:What is spoofing?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:34:17 PM thomas_b:As to spoofing, sure. But I think that like most things on the Net this follows the principle
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:34:31 PM diane_c:And don't frequent users bookmark the back page anyway. Spoofing is using a remailer or other false URL
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:34:32 PM thomas_b:that locks are meant to keep honest men honest and that there's a
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:34:47 PM cetompkins:Spoofing is a technique by which one sender masquerades as another.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:34:51 PM thomas_b:practical limit to the amount of marginal cost one will incur to defeat problems
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:35:38 PM thomas_b: (pant, pant) Diane is right that bookmarking circumvents any or all of these problems.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:35:54 PM thomas_b:As a matter of fact, to veer off into the affective for a moment, I question
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:35:58 PM djennings_m:Again, why not have a mark identifying source that is clearly visible. Like what the TV stations place in the lower right corner?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:36:13 PM thomas_b:We do some things which are equivalent to that.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:36:17 PM thomas_b:Many sites do.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:36:32 PM thomas_b:Watermarking with a distinctive background is another possibility.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:36:55 PM thomas_b:I wonder if William_F has anything to say about the registrability of such a background.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:36:58 PM thomas_b: ??
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:37:26 PM william_f:In theory, it should be protectible--under federal trademakr law as "trade dress."
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:38:03 PM thomas_b:So that one could have some degree of protection against its duplication
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:38:05 PM william_f:Just as the shape of a coke bottle or Ferrari Testarosa is protected against copying, so a distinctive background on a page should be protected against copying.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:38:38 PM william_f:The closest relevant case involved the protection against copying of the decor of a mexican restarunt.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:38:52 PM william_f:Effective enforcement is, however, another matter.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:39:00 PM thomas_b:As a practical matter (and maybe a setup for a law-and-econ argument) I think that
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:39:16 PM david_g:What about litigation by Owens Corning to a certain color of pink?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:39:23 PM william_f:Like all aspects of IP on the net, it's one thing to articulate a rule; quite another to effectively enforce it.//
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:39:50 PM william_f:Owens Corning ultimately prevailed as to its color.//
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:40:04 PM william_f:Let's expand the frame of the discussion for a moment. The question of the legitimacy of framing, linking, and metatags is, of course, only one topic in the larger set of questions involving IP rights on the net. Tom, from your standpoint as the creator and adminstrator of a major database, do you think there are currently too many or too few rules concerning IP on the web? Which ones would you change?//
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:40:37 PM thomas_b:I don't know as it's so much a matter of too many or too few as it is a question of
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:40:50 PM thomas_b:how things play in practice. After all, a copyright holder
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:41:08 PM thomas_b:is capable of selling the product to which they hold rights for a cost of $0.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:41:21 PM thomas_b:and there is nothing inherent in copyright which is problematic.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:41:41 PM thomas_b:Strictly from the perspective of legal information biz, i think the
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:41:58 PM thomas_b:biggest problems have to do with public bodies granting exclusive rights to
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:42:27 PM thomas_b:particular publishers (notably West) and with some concepts which don't affect us much
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:42:44 PM thomas_b:here in the US, like crown copyright (which one or two Commonwealth countries have
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:42:54 PM thomas_b:already repudiated, I believe)
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:43:14 PM djennings_m:Crown Copyright?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:43:34 PM thomas_b:yes. A scheme by which the Crown asserts copyright in public documents like, for
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:43:40 PM thomas_b:example, the texts of the laws.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:43:45 PM thomas_b: ??
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:43:46 PM thomas_b: //
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:44:12 PM thomas_b:In some other spheres I wonder if we have the right focus.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:44:32 PM thomas_b:In arenas like music and visual products we seem to be more concerned with
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:44:47 PM thomas_b:protecting the rights of publishers than the rights of creators, and increasingly we
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:45:05 PM thomas_b:will not be able to assume that publishers are useful proxies for creators.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:45:29 PM thomas_b:In a scheme of mixed self-publication and third-party publication, they ar e not the same,
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:45:33 PM thomas_b:obviously\\
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:45:42 PM william_f:Other questions from the "audience" for Tom?//
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:46:14 PM thomas_b:Musta bored them all into submission (grin)
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:46:47 PM william_f:To anticipate a discussion we are likely to have in more depth later in the course -- do you think that the creators of material on the web should be able to enter into whatever contractual arrangements with users that they please? For example, support that you installed a "click on license" for your site, which required users to promise (as a condition for gaining access to your site) not to relay any of the information ot anyone else -- or, more radically, not to use Westlaw or Lexis. Shoul
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:47:08 PM william_f:d such commitments be enforceable?//
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:47:36 PM thomas_b:I think what you're talking about sounds a lot like the kinds of things
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:47:48 PM thomas_b:that people have talked about for years as problems in software
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:48:05 PM thomas_b:licensing -- so called "shrink wrap" stuff.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:48:19 PM thomas_b:I think that some set of those commitments should be enforceable.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:48:25 PM david_g:Creators of the web should not be allowed to enter into any kind of contractual agreements; isn't that what Article 2b is about?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:49:00 PM thomas_b:I'm sorry; more detail please.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:49:37 PM diane_c:No, 2B says that software should be considered a "good" for purposes of UCC treatment, not a "license" under present IP rules
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:50:13 PM diane_c:If software is treated as a good, it is regulated under UCC and EU consumer protection regulations. As a license of IP, it is not.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:50:24 PM thomas_b:As a more practical matter
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:50:37 PM thomas_b:I think there is a real limit to what the market will put up with
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:50:39 PM michael_f:Isn't software considered a good now in many instances?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:50:45 PM thomas_b:as CD publishers are finding out.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:50:50 PM thomas_b: //
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:50:58 PM moderator_betsy_r:I have a question about linking. In addition to the issues with "deep linking" and banner adds that we discussed somewhat above, do you believe there are any "right of publicity" issues with linking? I'm thinking here about several "adult" sites that have automatic links to disney.com, which may imply that they are sponsored by Disney (as improbable as that seems). Does/should this create a legal issue?//
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:51:12 PM CK Jor: "shrink wrap" stuff? I am sorry, tell us a bit more about it.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:51:57 PM thomas_b:Yes I believe there are. But that choice of example
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:52:16 PM thomas_b:also raises questions about the legitimacy of "parody-by-linking"
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:52:28 PM thomas_b:Or by framing.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:52:53 PM thomas_b:Suppose I dig up a right-to-life tract somewhere on the net
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:53:18 PM thomas_b:and frame it (with full attribution) under a banner which says "isn't this the most ridiculous thing
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:53:23 PM thomas_b:you've ever seen?"
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:53:47 PM thomas_b:after all, there are other forms of misappropriation than simply claiming authorship.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:54:14 PM thomas_b:Anyway to answer the question -- I think it *should* create an issue in some cases.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:54:34 PM thomas_b:Certain types of celebrity have little that is salable other than their picture, for instance.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:54:36 PM cetompkins:Sounds like a First Amendment-protected comment
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:54:43 PM michael_l:but why wouldn't that framing be fair use?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:55:09 PM cetompkins:The "Right to Life" tract, that is
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:55:45 PM thomas_b:probably is as I constructed it, but subtler examples come to mind.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:56:03 PM thomas_b:suppose I do the same thing but label it erroneously (on purpose) as a George Carlin
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:56:07 PM thomas_b:routine.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:56:10 PM thomas_b: //
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:56:16 PM cetompkins:How about a banner which ridiculed a commercial claim by a competitor. Would there be an issue there?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:56:36 PM thomas_b:I may not have accomplished anything other than getting myself sued by two people instead of one(grin).
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:56:39 PM thomas_b: //
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:56:49 PM william_f:Let's return to a question Diane raised at the beginning of the hour: Are the incentives that currently exist for the creation of databases adequate? If not, should the law grant greater protection to the creators of databases? Where did the money necessary to create the LII come from, anyway? Bottom line: are the bills currently before Congress proposing greater protection for databases a good idea?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:58:07 PM cetompkins:So, extending protection to "mere" facts??
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:58:12 PM thomas_b:The problem is of course deciding whether compilations are of themselves enough work to justify protection.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:59:03 PM diane_c:I don't have a problem with "sweat of the brow" protection...I have a problem with the restrictions on extrapolating segments of the compilation.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:59:17 PM thomas_b:As do I.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:59:23 PM diane_c:My hero.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:59:28 PM cetompkins:Haven't "sweat of the brow" arguments been rejected for data compilation protection?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 01:59:32 PM thomas_b:Some of the silence here is actually my brain whirring.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:00:05 PM diane_c:In case law, Feist, they have. But changes are pending before Cognress now
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:00:12 PM thomas_b:If I had to suggest something it would be protection of rights in a compilation for a limited period of
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:00:41 PM thomas_b:time (very limited) with some obligation to grant licenses essentially to all comers.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:01:10 PM thomas_b:the problem again is not that the owners of certain databases be given certain rights, it's how they
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:01:32 PM thomas_b:dispose of any property to which we grant them rights, no? I really do see exclusivity as the enemy, at
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:01:47 PM thomas_b:least when it comes to government information. Am I making any kind of sense here?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:01:50 PM thomas_b: //
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:02:29 PM diane_c:Do you think database compilations would be subject to the same originality rules as regular copyright material? Viz. if i run a yahoo search and come up with 6 cases that would constitute an original work, not an extrapolation from your compilation?
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:02:44 PM lors_f:May I ask where did the money come from to create LII
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:02:53 PM thomas_b: lors first.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:03:11 PM thomas_b:we got startup funding from Cornell and from a couple of private foundations.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:03:32 PM thomas_b:we earn our keep from consulting fees and licensing of software we've developed.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:03:56 PM thomas_b:consulting is mostly within the legal information community, software outside it. we've also done work
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:04:11 PM thomas_b:on professional-community development stuff for the likes of MCI and IBM.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:04:28 PM thomas_b:Anyway, back to compilations...
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:04:37 PM thomas_b:depends on how clever the search is.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:05:04 PM thomas_b:after all, there are some data extractions which show a high degree of insight/originality.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:05:17 PM thomas_b:so I wouldn't make an ironclad rule against them, no.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:05:38 PM thomas_b:After all if you were to do that you'd essentially be granting rights in all us demographic data of any
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:05:45 PM thomas_b:kind to the Census Bureau.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:05:48 PM thomas_b: //
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:06:20 PM thomas_b: ??
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:06:22 PM diane_c:Original simply means "not copied" as I recall. I think any search would qualify as original.
Fri Apr 10, 1998 02:06:34 PM william_f:We've come to the end of the hour. Thanks, Tom, for participating. Thanks to everyone else for your comments and questions. If you have any suggestions concerning how we might run these sessions more effectively, please either submit them now (in the chat room) or through the "suggestion box" in the threaded conference. ///