Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

property right, the Database Directive contains an equallycontroversial reciprocity provision, which specifies that this rightwill apply to databases whose makers are nationals or habitualresidents of third countries “only if such third countries offercomparable protection to databases produced by nationals of aMember State or persons who have their habitual residence in theterritory of the Community.”6 In other words, unless the UnitedStates enacts comparable protection for European databases, U.S.database producers other than those who also establishthemselves in an EU member state will not be entitled to this suigeneris protection.Not surprisingly, within weeks of the promulgation of the EUDatabase Directive, the first U.S. bill aimed at creating a similarsui generis right in data was proposed in the United States Houseof Representatives.7 Yet today, after five years of pitched debate,most recently over two bills embodying the two competingapproaches to the problem of data piracy, all the United Statesseems to have achieved is a legislative stalemate on the issue.In the now-expired 106th Congress, committees of the UnitedStates House of Representatives considered two bills—H.R. 354(the “Collections of Information Antipiracy Act”)8 and H.R. 1858(the “Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act”).9 H.R.354 would effectively create a sui generis right, somewhatanalogous to that mandated by the EU Database Directive, byprohibiting the extraction or making available to others of all or asubstantial part of a collection of information gathered, organizedor maintained by another person through the investment ofsubstantial monetary or other resources, so as to cause materialharm to the primary or a related market of that other person or asuccessor in interest.10 Though labeled an “antipiracy” act andcontaining features, such as the “material harm” requirement,6. Id. at recital 56.7. See infra note 149 and accompanying text.8. H.R. 354, 106th Cong. (1999). Actually, there are two versions of this bill, theoriginal bill as introduced in the House, dated Jan. 19, 1999, and a revised bill asreported in the House (Union Calendar No. 212), dated Oct. 8, 1999. Unless otherwisenoted, all references in this article will be to the later version of the bill.9. H.R. 1858, 106th Cong. (1999). There are likewise two versions of this bill,the original bill as introduced in the House, dated May 19, 1999, and a revised bill asreported in the House (Union Calendar No. 213), dated Oct. 8, 1999. All referencesherein are to the later version of the bill.10. H.R. 354 § 1402.