13.07.2015 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

purpose to be achieved.163 By contrast, H.R. 354 not only containsa specific privilege for certain non-pr<strong>of</strong>it educational, scientificand research uses164 (as well as a variety <strong>of</strong> other specificprivileges165), but also contains a much broader “reasonable use”privilege,166 which is reminiscent <strong>of</strong> the fair use privilegecontained in section 107 <strong>of</strong> the United States Copyright Act.While this “reasonable use” provision was apparently considered anecessary concession to domestic critics <strong>of</strong> earlier versions <strong>of</strong> thebill, the resulting difference in the scope <strong>of</strong> permissible uses underH.R. 354 and the EU Database Directive raises the questionwhether H.R. 354 would in fact provide protection “comparable” tothe sui generis right mandated in the EU Directive.The question <strong>of</strong> comparability becomes still murkier when theterms <strong>of</strong> protection under H.R. 354 and the EU Database Directiveare compared. While both provide for a fifteen year term <strong>of</strong>protection that is subject to extension in order to protectcumulatively substantial updating <strong>of</strong> the database, the EUDatabase Directive apparently mandates a dynamic approach thatwould protect a new edition in its entirety, whereas H.R. 354adopts a variable term <strong>of</strong> protection that would only protect thenew material in the new edition.167Article 10 <strong>of</strong> the EU Database Directive states that anysubstantial change to the contents <strong>of</strong> a database that causes thedatabase to be considered a substantial new investment qualifies“the database resulting from that investment”—and not simplythe new material—to its own term <strong>of</strong> protection. The databaseproducer is apparently under no obligation to distinguish whatdata in that database is new and what has been previouslyprotected.By contrast, H.R. 354 states (1) that no action may “bemaintained for making available or extracting all or a substantialpart <strong>of</strong> a collection <strong>of</strong> information that occurs more than 15 yearsafter the portion <strong>of</strong> the collection that is made available orextracted was first <strong>of</strong>fered in commerce following the investment163. EU Database Directive, supra note 4, at art. 9(b).164. H.R. 354 § 1403(b), 106th Cong. (1999).165. Id. § 1403(c)(i) (allowing individual items and other insubstantial parts,independently gathered information, verification purposes, news reporting, transfer <strong>of</strong>copy, genealogical information, and investigative, protective, or intelligence activities).166. Id. § 1403(a).167. Id. § 1409(c).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!