Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Sat, 30 Mar 91 19:08:00 EST From: "Daniel R. Guilderson" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable Message-ID: Organization: TELECOM Digest Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 267, Message 4 of 11 Lines: 57 > PAT writes: > [Moderator's Note: [stuff deleted] > If *I* had anything to do with telco directory compilation and > distribution, my response to the Supreme Court would be to abolish > phone directories entirely. That would wipe out the leeches in the > directory-publishing industry overnight and prevent any futher > theft of my work, whether the Supreme Court liked it or not. PAT] That would be a counterproductive response for a company which was in the business of pleasing its customers. Publishing a directory probably doesn't cost the phone company a whole lot relative to the entire business. Since it is great public relations and great advertising, it would be prudent to keep producing and distributing them. Another thing to consider is that the cost of compiling and checking the directory information is probably miniscule compared to the cost of manufacturing and distributing the directories. My last thought on this is that the competing directory publishers have to get the information somehow. I would think that it would be easier and cheaper to buy the information directly from the phone company, probably in electronic form. I say this because of all the different white page directories I have ever seen, I have never seen one that wasn't reformatted to fit in more advertising. With that in mind, I would imagine that the cost of buying the electronic info would be small compared to the cost of working with a hardcopy or the cost of scanning in the information. By the way, the framers of the US Constitution never intended copyrights to protect personal information. They were intended to protect creative works. Trying to apply a limited law to a more general case will most likely be disastrous. Daniel Guilderson UMass Boston, Harbor Campus, Dorchester, MA USA ryan@cs.umb.edu [Moderator's Note: You say it would be 'easier and cheaper' to get the informaiton by paying telco -- but the court ruling we are discussing said the competitors no longer have to pay telco the first nickle. They are free to take the information, period. Telco cannot forbid them to rip off the information in the directory, nor can they force them to pay for it. You say 'telco is in the business of pleasing its customers' ... but what about the alternate directory people? Are they trying to please anyone, or just make a fast buck show up even faster? Since they no longer have to pay telco for the directory listings (for to force them to pay if they were unable to do so would be denying them what the court said they could have with no strings attached), how many of those companies do you think will actually volunteer to pay anything? Do you have money you wish to give away to telco? If I was in telco's place, I'd suspend directory publishing at least for two or three years and let the lucky benefactors of the Court's Wisdom wind up bankrupt and out of business, *then* start publishing directories again. PAT]