David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Considers the impact of four European Court of Justice rulings, including British Horseracing Board Ltd v William Hill Organisation Ltd (C-203/02), which examined the scope of the sui generis database right under European Parliament and Council Directive 96/9. Reviews the background to the legislation, the facts of the cases and the court's conclusions on the function of the sui generis right, the definition of a database, the criteria required for the purposes of protection, including the need to demonstrate substantial investment in obtaining and verifying data, and the position concerning extraction and re-utilisation of data.In November 2004, the Court of Justice gave its ruling in four related cases involving interpretation of the scope of the sui generis right introduced by Database Directive 96/9 to protect investment in making databases. The Court has in some respects construed the scope of the right broadly (definition of subject-matter and rights) and in others restrictively (protection requirement and infringement test). The most important aspect of the Court's ruling is that investment in creation of data does not trigger the sui generis right. Thus many databases consisting of created data (for example television listings, event data including sports fixtures, timetables, stock exchange data etc.) will generally remain unprotected. The decision is to be welcomed: it attempts to achieve a better balance between database producers' rights and public access to information by restricting the scope of the sui generis right, which had been criticised as being one of the most protective intellectual property rights on one of the least deserving subject-matters.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
A. R. Lacey (1963). Thoughts and the Sui Generis. Mind 72 (285):129 - 132.
David McNaughton, Piers Rawling & Sabina Lovibond (2003). Naturalism and Normativity. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 77 (1):23 - 45.
Anne Warfield Rawls (1987). The Interaction Order Sui Generis: Goffman's Contribution to Social Theory. Sociological Theory 5 (2):136-149.
David McNaughton & Piers Rawling (2003). Naturalism and Normativity. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 77 (1):23–45.
Michelle Montague (2009). The Logic, Intentionality, and Phenomenology of Emotion. Philosophical Studies 145 (2):171-192.
Molly Torsen, Anonymous, Untitled, Mixed Media: Mixing Intellectual Property Law with Other Legal Philosophies to Protect Traditional Cultural Expressions.
Young Bin Moon (2010). God as a Communicative System Sui Generis: Beyond the Psychic, Social, Process Models of the Trinity. Zygon 45 (1):105-126.
Kathrin Glüer (2009). In Defence of a Doxastic Account of Experience. Mind and Language 24 (3):297-327.
Frank Jackson (2005). Ramsey Sentences and Avoiding the Sui Generis. In Hallvard Lillehammer & D.H. Mellor (eds.), Ramsey's Legacy (Mind Association Occasional Series). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
David B. Resnik (2003). Strengthening the United States' Database Protection Laws: Balancing Public Access and Private Control. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (3):301-318.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #203,584 of 1,413,160 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #153,719 of 1,413,160 )
How can I increase my downloads?