developed a new theory to justify the protection of factual compilations. Known alternatively as 'sweat of the brow or"industrious collection, the underlying notion was that copyright was a reward for the hard work that went into compilin facts. "8In Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 39the Supreme Court reversed these decisions and held that copyright protection will be granted only to a work facts is not per se copyrightable; it must meet an"originality" requirement to of that is both original and commands a degree of creativity. a mere compilatie Congress was not enthused. In an era of abundant information the socia value of complication and organization of facts" is on the rise. Information may be available yet worthless if we cannot easily find it. In fact, the more information is available, the higher the cost of locating it is likely to be Compilations, databases, and computer finder tools are crucial to the use of information. In addition, it is costly to compile and organize information. The cost rises with the amount and complexity of the information. Without copyright protection, people are unlikely to invest in this enterprise. Said the congressional committee While Feist reaffirmed that most-although not all-commercially significant databases satisfy the originality requirement for protection under copyright, the Court emphasized that this protection is necessarily thin. Several subsequent lower court decisions have underscored that copyright cannot stop a competitor from lifting massive amounts of factual material from a copyrighted database to use as the basis for its own competing product. This casts doubt on the ability of a database proprietor to use contractual provisions to protect itself against unfair competition from The time was ripe for change. In its report, the congressional committee stated: [t is clear that now is the time to enact new Federal copyright-related legislation to protect developers against piracy and unfair competition, and thus encourage continued investment in the production and distribution of valuable commercial collections of information It is interesting that the Supreme Court missed the mark in Feist by changing the statutory interpretation of some courts, reiterating and strengthening the principle of originality. The Court did not analyze the new context of the Internet, in which compilation and organization of materials(facts ) became far more important. While Feist does not actually say"let Congress decide the Court makes it clear that the original statute was ambiguous, and should specify which compilations of facts merit copyright protection. Courts do not rewrite the statute Congress does. But rewriting is such a vague term. In some sense the courts 58 Id at 352; see id at 352-53(quoting Jeweler's Circular Publ g Co. v. Keystone Publ'g Co., 281 F. 83, 88(2d Cir. 1922))(It]he classic formulation of the doctrine) 39499US.340 40lat357-58 4HRRF.No.106-349,pt.l,at10(199 - ld at l1 1010 developed a new theory to justify the protection of factual compilations. Known alternatively as ‘sweat of the brow’ or ‘industrious collection,’ the underlying notion was that copyright was a reward for the hard work that went into compiling facts.” 38 In Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 39 the Supreme Court reversed these decisions and held that copyright protection will be granted only to a work that is both original and commands a degree of creativity. A mere compilation of facts is not per se copyrightable; it must meet an “originality” requirement.40 Congress was not enthused. In an era of abundant information, the social value of complication and organization of “facts” is on the rise. Information may be available yet worthless if we cannot easily find it. In fact, the more information is available, the higher the cost of locating it is likely to be. Compilations, databases, and computer finder tools are crucial to the use of information. In addition, it is costly to compile and organize information. The cost rises with the amount and complexity of the information. Without copyright protection, people are unlikely to invest in this enterprise. Said the congressional committee: “While Feist reaffirmed that most-although not all-commercially significant databases satisfy the ‘originality’ requirement for protection under copyright, the Court emphasized that this protection is ‘necessarily thin.’ Several subsequent lower court decisions have underscored that copyright cannot stop a competitor from lifting massive amounts of factual material from a copyrighted database to use as the basis for its own competing product. This casts doubt on the ability of a database proprietor to use contractual provisions to protect itself against unfair competition from ‘free riders’.”41 The time was ripe for change. In its report, the congressional committee stated: “[I]t is clear that now is the time to enact new Federal copyright-related legislation to protect developers against piracy and unfair competition, and thus encourage continued investment in the production and distribution of valuable commercial collections of information.”42 It is interesting that the Supreme Court missed the mark in Feist by changing the statutory interpretation of some courts, reiterating and strengthening the principle of originality. The Court did not analyze the new context of the Internet, in which compilation and organization of materials (facts) became far more important. While Feist does not actually say “let Congress decide” the Court makes it clear that the original statute was ambiguous, and should specify which compilations of facts merit copyright protection. Courts do not rewrite the statute- -Congress does. But rewriting is such a vague term. In some sense the courts 38 Id. at 352; see id. at 352-53 (quoting Jeweler’s Circular Publ’g Co. v. Keystone Publ’g Co., 281 F. 83, 88 (2d Cir. 1922)) (“[t]he classic formulation of the doctrine”). 39 499 U.S. 340. 40 Id. at 357-58. 41 H.R. REP. No. 106-349, pt. 1, at 10 (1999). 42 Id. at 11