Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law
Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law
shall be null and void.65 Member states may (but are not requiredto) create exceptions, allowing lawful users of a database madeavailable to the public to extract or re-utilize a substantial part ofits contents for three limited purposes.66 The term of protection isfifteen years from the first day of the next calendar year followingcompletion of the database, or if it is made available to the public,fifteen years from the first day of the next calendar year followingpublication.67 Any substantial change in the contents of thedatabase that would result in the database being considered asubstantially new investment would be entitled to its own term ofprotection.68 Finally, in stating that protection will be accorded todatabases whose makers are not nationals, habitual residents, orlegal persons established in a member state only if the country oforigin of the database offers “comparable protection” to databasesproduced by nationals, habitual residents or legal personsestablished in a member country of the European Community, theDirective seems to place those segments of the U.S. databaseindustry that do not have an established presence in the EU at apotentially serious competitive disadvantage in the EU.69Not surprisingly, promulgation of the EU Database Directiveimmediately generated demands for sui generis databaseprotection in the United States and stimulated a series ofproposed legislative responses. Thus far, however, the only resulthas been a legislative stalemate. As we have seen, the two billsmost recently considered by the United States Congress—H.R.354 and H.R. 1858—reflect two competing approaches to suigeneris database protection. H.R. 354 would accord a databasedeveloper a limited-term right,70 somewhat analogous to that65. Id. at art. 8.66. Id. at art. 9. Lawful users of a database made available to the public mayextract or re-utilize as substantial part of its contents: (a) in the case of extraction forprivate purposes of the contents of a non-electronic database; (b) in the case ofextraction for the purposes of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long asthe source is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to beachieved; and (c) in the case of extraction and/or re-utilization for the purposes ofpublic security or an administrative or judicial purpose. Id.67. Id. at art. 10.68. Id.69. See id. at art 11(3) and recital 56; but see infra note 184 and accompanyingtext.70. H.R. 354 § 1409(c), 106th Cong. (1999). For a detailed discussion of theinteresting way H.R. 354 manages to create a limited term of protection and yetmaintain its credentials as an antipiracy act see infra notes 168-71 and accompanying
created by the EU Database Directive, to prevent non-competingas well as competing uses of substantial portions of a database,thus recreating a limited form of the “sweat of the brow”protection laid to rest in Feist.71 By contrast, H.R. 1858 wouldprovide a narrower form of misappropriation protection byprohibiting only (1) the sale or distribution to the public of acompeting duplicate of a database collected and organized byanother and (2) misappropriation of real-time market information,thus effectively “re-federalizing” the holding in InternationalNews, at least as applied to databases.Other countries are closely following the debate in the UnitedStates over database protection. Japan may have opted in favor ofan unfair competition approach to database protection when itamended its Unfair Competition Law in 1993 to prohibit, for alimited three-year term of protection, the slavish imitation(referred to in Japanese as “dead copies”) of another’s goods.72While the subject of slavish copying under Japan’s UnfairCompetition Law can only be products, not services, computersoftware and databases apparently qualify as products whenmarketed on floppy discs or CDs, and the law may even extend tovirtual goods.73 Australia is said to be “walking a fine linebetween, on the one hand, supporting improvement of copyrightprotection against new uses in the digital environment and, on theother, avoiding excessive copyright protection resulting in denialof reasonable access to works and/or increased adverse balance oftrade in copyright royalties.”74 Korea is also considering howdatabases ought to be protected.75 Accordingly, the choice of oneU.S. bill over the other will be extremely influential intext.71. H.R. 354, § 1409(d).72. See Unfair Competition Act [Japan], Law No. 47/1993, § 2(3) (May 19, 1993);see generally Christopher Heath, The System of Unfair Competition Prevention inJapan 120-40 (2001) (discussing Japan’s approach to combating unfair competition).73. See Heath, supra note 72, at 130-31.74. Matilda in Cyberspace, Berne Protocol–Latest Development (July 9, 1996) (emailfrom Jaime Wodetski, commenting on database protection proposals prepared forthe benefit of the Libraries Copyright Committee), athttp://www.anu.edu.au/Matilda/issues/199607/715.source.html (last visited Apr. 11,2001).75. See Sang Jo Jong & Junu Park, Property versus Misappropriation: LegalProtection for Databases in Korea, 8 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y (forthcoming) (2002).75. See Sang Jo Jong & Junu Park, Property versus Misappropriation: LegalProtection for Databases in Korea, 8 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y (forthcoming) (2002).
- Page 3: ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITYLAW REVIEW
- Page 7 and 8: ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITYSCHOOL OF
- Page 9: Identification StatementThe Roger W
- Page 12 and 13: contract exclusion or disclaimer of
- Page 14 and 15: and other laws of countries in whic
- Page 16 and 17: Symposium and writes on this issue
- Page 18 and 19: Indeed, the quotation contains the
- Page 20 and 21: suggestive of a bill designed merel
- Page 22 and 23: United States ought to adopt in lig
- Page 24 and 25: the Supreme Court to reiterate in F
- Page 26 and 27: United States Supreme Court quoted
- Page 28 and 29: copying of “a work protected unde
- Page 32 and 33: determining the fate of database pr
- Page 34 and 35: The compilation of a database requi
- Page 36 and 37: management information, including c
- Page 38 and 39: one congressional witness noted:
- Page 40 and 41: that were made after the initial te
- Page 42 and 43: preferred language of many business
- Page 44 and 45: the sui generis right mainly serves
- Page 46 and 47: the Paris Convention for the Protec
- Page 48 and 49: directly or indirectly.159 In other
- Page 50 and 51: of resources that qualifies that po
- Page 52 and 53: wish to encourage private lawsuits,
- Page 54 and 55: contract.”185 While section 1405(
- Page 56 and 57: The Directive will inevitably drive
- Page 58 and 59: the process through which digital p
- Page 60 and 61: the United States or the trade and
- Page 62 and 63: patent law is the utilitarian ethic
- Page 64 and 65: a work to be publicly identified as
- Page 66 and 67: the United States, the power of the
- Page 68 and 69: Theory one proposes to reward the a
- Page 70 and 71: of intellectual property rights mus
- Page 72 and 73: only such as are original, and are
- Page 74 and 75: emedies set forth in section 1406.T
- Page 76 and 77: eproduced, though there be no ingen
- Page 78 and 79: the same, or substantially the same
shall be null and void.65 Member states may (but are not requiredto) create exceptions, allowing lawful users <strong>of</strong> a database madeavailable to the public to extract or re-utilize a substantial part <strong>of</strong>its contents for three limited purposes.66 The term <strong>of</strong> protection isfifteen years from the first day <strong>of</strong> the next calendar year followingcompletion <strong>of</strong> the database, or if it is made available to the public,fifteen years from the first day <strong>of</strong> the next calendar year followingpublication.67 Any substantial change in the contents <strong>of</strong> thedatabase that would result in the database being considered asubstantially new investment would be entitled to its own term <strong>of</strong>protection.68 Finally, in stating that protection will be accorded todatabases whose makers are not nationals, habitual residents, orlegal persons established in a member state only if the country <strong>of</strong>origin <strong>of</strong> the database <strong>of</strong>fers “comparable protection” to databasesproduced by nationals, habitual residents or legal personsestablished in a member country <strong>of</strong> the European Community, theDirective seems to place those segments <strong>of</strong> the U.S. databaseindustry that do not have an established presence in the EU at apotentially serious competitive disadvantage in the EU.69<strong>No</strong>t surprisingly, promulgation <strong>of</strong> the EU Database Directiveimmediately generated demands for sui generis databaseprotection in the United States and stimulated a series <strong>of</strong>proposed legislative responses. Thus far, however, the only resulthas been a legislative stalemate. As we have seen, the two billsmost recently considered by the United States Congress—H.R.354 and H.R. 1858—reflect two competing approaches to suigeneris database protection. H.R. 354 would accord a databasedeveloper a limited-term right,70 somewhat analogous to that65. Id. at art. 8.66. Id. at art. 9. <strong>Law</strong>ful users <strong>of</strong> a database made available to the public mayextract or re-utilize as substantial part <strong>of</strong> its contents: (a) in the case <strong>of</strong> extraction forprivate purposes <strong>of</strong> the contents <strong>of</strong> a non-electronic database; (b) in the case <strong>of</strong>extraction for the purposes <strong>of</strong> illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long asthe source is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to beachieved; and (c) in the case <strong>of</strong> extraction and/or re-utilization for the purposes <strong>of</strong>public security or an administrative or judicial purpose. Id.67. Id. at art. 10.68. Id.69. See id. at art 11(3) and recital 56; but see infra note 184 and accompanyingtext.70. H.R. 354 § 1409(c), 106th Cong. (1999). For a detailed discussion <strong>of</strong> theinteresting way H.R. 354 manages to create a limited term <strong>of</strong> protection and yetmaintain its credentials as an antipiracy act see infra notes 168-71 and accompanying