Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!sun-barr!lll-winken!telecom-request From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable Message-ID: Date: 5 Apr 91 08:46:15 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: Cal State Long Beach Lines: 63 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 270, Message 6 of 14 In article ryan@cs.umb.edu (Daniel R. Guilderson) writes: > 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. [deleted] > [Moderator's Note: You say it would be 'easier and cheaper' to get the > information 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] This is unlikely and unproductive for a number of potential reasons: 1. Attempting to drive a competitor out of business is often frowned upon by various regulatory and securities and legal authorities. Can you say 'anti-trust' ? This doesn't give the competitor any guarantee of existence but unfair business practices are out. 2. The absence of directories would hurt both consumers and merchants and potentially the phone companies themselves (except for DA of course, and that might be looked upon badly by the PUC's). 3. The officers of the phone companies have a fudiciary responsibility to maximize profits, not act out of spite. 4. The issue raised by the poster is that it could be more cost effective for the alternative directory publishers to buy the information in an already computerized form at a cheaper rate per entry than capturing it via human or automated means. 5. Selling it would become a profit center for the telco's. If you have to provide it to outsiders with no protection from copyright, you might as well make some money on the deal. [Moderator's Note: Well then, I would hand them a phone book -- probably one removed from service after a couple months at a pay station with the cover defaced and half the pages missing and tell them to have at it ... :) PAT]