Strengthening the united states' database protection laws: Balancing public access and private control
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (3):301-318 (2003)
This paper develops three arguments for increasing the strength of database protection under U.S. law. First, stronger protections would encourage private investment in database development, and private databases have many potential benefits for science and industry. Second, stronger protections would discourage extensive use of private licenses to protect databases and would allow for greater public control over database laws and policies. Third, stronger database protections in the U.S. would harmonize U.S. and E.U. laws and would thus enhance international trade, commerce, and research. The U.S. should therefore follow the European example and develop two tiers of protection for databases: 1) protection for creative databases under copyright law; 2) protection for non-creative databases through a special type of sui generis protection. In order to balance private control of data and public access to data, sui generis protections should define a “fair use” exemption that permits some unauthorized extraction of data for private, educational, and research purposes, provided that such extraction does not adversely impact the economic value of the database.
|Keywords||databases copyrights intellectual property sui generis protection European Union Feist v. Rural Telephone|
|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
Laura B. Pincus & Roger Johns (1997). Private Parts: A Global Analysis of Privacy Protection Schemes and a Proposed Innovation for Their Comparative Evaluation. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 16 (12-13):1237-1260.
B. Godard, J. Marshall, C. Laberge & B. M. Knoppers (2004). Strategies for Consulting with the Community: The Cases of Four Large-Scale Genetic Databases. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (3):457-477.
Alison Adam (2005). Delegating and distributing morality: Can we inscribe privacy protection in a machine? [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 7 (4):233-242.
Vilhjálmur Árnason (2011). Database Research: Public and Private Interests. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (04):563-571.
Z. Chen (1994). Knowledge Discovery and System-User Partnership: On a Production “Adversarial Partnership” Approach. [REVIEW] AI and Society 8 (4):341-356.
Luuk Matthijssen (1998). A Task-Based Interface to Legal Databases. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6 (1):81-103.
Moshe Cohen-Eliya & Iddo Porat, American Balancing and German Proportionality: The Historical Origins.
Heinz-Dieter Meyer (2010). Local Control as a Mechanism of Colonization of Public Education in the United States. Educational Philosophy and Theory 42 (8):830-845.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #297,594 of 1,102,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #296,987 of 1,102,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?