Difference between revisions of "Student Projects:Database Protection:Damon"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
We now investigate a piece of legislation aimed squarely at database protection, one beginning to have a serious track record. The Directive on the Legal Protection of Databases (hereafter the Database Directive) was adopted by the EU in 1996, though the last member countries enacted legislation enforcing the directive in 2000. | We now investigate a piece of legislation aimed squarely at database protection, one beginning to have a serious track record. The Directive on the Legal Protection of Databases (hereafter the Database Directive) was adopted by the EU in 1996, though the last member countries enacted legislation enforcing the directive in 2000. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Defining the Directive===== | ||
| + | We will examine the protections that this Directive creates in detail, making clear: | ||
| + | *What the Directive explicitly does and does not allow | ||
| + | *The exceptions that it provides for scientific use | ||
| + | *The freedoms that it allows to member states in the creation of their own legislation | ||
| + | *The portions of the directive that are most ambiguous and/or troublesome | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Implementations of the Directive===== | ||
| + | We will examine some of the country-specific legislation that has sprung up to implement the Directive, e.g. | ||
| + | *Germany: Article 7 of The Information and Communication Services Act | ||
| + | *UK: 1997 Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Enforcement of the Directive===== | ||
| + | We will judge the directive and its progeny by their works. We will explore the precedents set by some of the more interesting court cases that have arisen from these country-specific pieces of legislation, including: | ||
| + | *Germany | ||
| + | **''Medizinisches Lexicon'' 1998 | ||
| + | **''Tele-Info-CD'' 1999 | ||
| + | *UK | ||
| + | **''British Horseracing Board (BHB) v. William Hill Organization Ltd.'' | ||
| + | **''Fixtures Marketing'' cases | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Responses to the Directive===== | ||
| + | We will examine the responses of various organizations to the directive, including the 2002 official review from Nauta Dutilh (an Amsterdam-based legal firm) commissioned by the EU. These responses investigate the increase in creation of new databases since the Directive and raise several concerns about the effects of the directive on scientific research. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Evaluating the Directive===== | ||
| + | Based on these observations, we will form an opinion of the success of the Directive in encouraging innovation and protecting investment. We will weigh those potentially positive effects against the barriers that the Directive has raised to legitimate scientific use of information. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Bibliography===== | ||
| + | 1. Council Directive No. 96/9/EC, O.J.L 77/20 (1996); available at http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/infosoc/legreg/docs/969ec.html | ||
| + | 2. Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 3032 (The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997); available at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1997/1973032.htm | ||
| + | 3. Federal Act Establishing the General Conditions for Information and Communication Services (1997); available at http://www.iid.de/rahmen/iukdgebt.html | ||
| + | 4. P. B. Hugenholtz, “The new database right: Early case law from Europe” (2001); available at www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/fordham2001.html | ||
| + | 5. Eugene Russo, “EU Database Directive Draws Fire”, The Scientist Volume 16, Issue 14, Jul. 8, 2002; available at http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2002/jul/russo_p18_020708.html | ||
| + | 6. Commission Staff Working Paper on the review of the EC legal framework in the field of copyright and related rights (2004) ; available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/copyright/docs/review/sec-2004-995_en.pdf | ||
| + | 7. Database Directive 96/9/EC, European Commission Review (2002); available at http://www.eblida.org/topics/copyright/nautadutilh_aug02.doc | ||
| + | 8. “UK Court of Appeal Rules on First Case Involving Online Database Rights”. IP/TECH ADVISOR March 2002; available at http://www.goodwinprocter.com/publications/IPA_databaserightsUK_3_02.pdf | ||
| + | 9. “DATABASE PROTECTION NARROWED: BRITISH HORSERACING BOARD v WILLIAM HILL”; The Simkins Partnership; available at http://www.simkins.co.uk/ebulletins/archive/TAFDatabaseProtection.aspx | ||
| + | 10. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 9 November 2004 (1); available at http://www.curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&num=79958890C19020203&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET&where | ||
| + | 11. “Press Release No. 89/04, 9 November 2004”; available at http://curia.eu.int/en/actu/communiques/cp04/aff/cp040089en.pdf | ||
| + | 12. “Program Schedules, Event Data and Telephone Subscriber Listings under the Database Directive”, P. Bernt Hugenholtz, 2003; available at http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/spinofffordham.html | ||
Revision as of 22:53, 14 November 2004
Back to our Main Project Page
We now investigate a piece of legislation aimed squarely at database protection, one beginning to have a serious track record. The Directive on the Legal Protection of Databases (hereafter the Database Directive) was adopted by the EU in 1996, though the last member countries enacted legislation enforcing the directive in 2000.
Contents
Defining the Directive
We will examine the protections that this Directive creates in detail, making clear:
- What the Directive explicitly does and does not allow
- The exceptions that it provides for scientific use
- The freedoms that it allows to member states in the creation of their own legislation
- The portions of the directive that are most ambiguous and/or troublesome
Implementations of the Directive
We will examine some of the country-specific legislation that has sprung up to implement the Directive, e.g.
- Germany: Article 7 of The Information and Communication Services Act
- UK: 1997 Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations.
Enforcement of the Directive
We will judge the directive and its progeny by their works. We will explore the precedents set by some of the more interesting court cases that have arisen from these country-specific pieces of legislation, including:
- Germany
- Medizinisches Lexicon 1998
- Tele-Info-CD 1999
- UK
- British Horseracing Board (BHB) v. William Hill Organization Ltd.
- Fixtures Marketing cases
Responses to the Directive
We will examine the responses of various organizations to the directive, including the 2002 official review from Nauta Dutilh (an Amsterdam-based legal firm) commissioned by the EU. These responses investigate the increase in creation of new databases since the Directive and raise several concerns about the effects of the directive on scientific research.
Evaluating the Directive
Based on these observations, we will form an opinion of the success of the Directive in encouraging innovation and protecting investment. We will weigh those potentially positive effects against the barriers that the Directive has raised to legitimate scientific use of information.
Bibliography
1. Council Directive No. 96/9/EC, O.J.L 77/20 (1996); available at http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/infosoc/legreg/docs/969ec.html 2. Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 3032 (The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997); available at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1997/1973032.htm 3. Federal Act Establishing the General Conditions for Information and Communication Services (1997); available at http://www.iid.de/rahmen/iukdgebt.html 4. P. B. Hugenholtz, “The new database right: Early case law from Europe” (2001); available at www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/fordham2001.html 5. Eugene Russo, “EU Database Directive Draws Fire”, The Scientist Volume 16, Issue 14, Jul. 8, 2002; available at http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2002/jul/russo_p18_020708.html 6. Commission Staff Working Paper on the review of the EC legal framework in the field of copyright and related rights (2004) ; available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/copyright/docs/review/sec-2004-995_en.pdf 7. Database Directive 96/9/EC, European Commission Review (2002); available at http://www.eblida.org/topics/copyright/nautadutilh_aug02.doc 8. “UK Court of Appeal Rules on First Case Involving Online Database Rights”. IP/TECH ADVISOR March 2002; available at http://www.goodwinprocter.com/publications/IPA_databaserightsUK_3_02.pdf 9. “DATABASE PROTECTION NARROWED: BRITISH HORSERACING BOARD v WILLIAM HILL”; The Simkins Partnership; available at http://www.simkins.co.uk/ebulletins/archive/TAFDatabaseProtection.aspx 10. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 9 November 2004 (1); available at http://www.curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&num=79958890C19020203&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET&where 11. “Press Release No. 89/04, 9 November 2004”; available at http://curia.eu.int/en/actu/communiques/cp04/aff/cp040089en.pdf 12. “Program Schedules, Event Data and Telephone Subscriber Listings under the Database Directive”, P. Bernt Hugenholtz, 2003; available at http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/spinofffordham.html
