Advertisement

(Re)Structuring Data Law: Approaches to Data Property

  • Thomas HoerenEmail author
  • Philip Bitter
Chapter

Abstract

Data itself is referred to as the driving force behind an advancing digital economy. Thus, a broad discussion on the “ownership” of data is in progress. Structuring the corresponding rights to data requires a legal approach to the relationship between data as such, information that can be contained in data, and data carriers. Since data is traded like tangible objects under the law of obligations, a corresponding assignment of data in rem may also be required in German civil law. Therefore, the creation of a property-like right de lege lata was considered with regard to the handling of data in criminal law. However, data law does not require a comprehensive restructuring in terms of general data ownership de lege ferenda as it is partly considered.

Keywords

Big data Data rights Ownership 

References

  1. Althammer, C. (2016). In K.-H. Gursky (Ed.). Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch—Buch 3: Sachenrecht (rev. ed. 2016). Berlin: Sellier—de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  2. Arbeitsgruppe “Digitaler Neustart”. (2017). Bericht vom 15. Mai 2017, Retrieved from https://www.justiz.nrw.de/JM/schwerpunkte/digitaler_neustart/zt_bericht_arbeitsgruppe/bericht_ag_dig_neustart.pdf.
  3. Beckmann, R. M. (2013). In M. Martinek (Ed.). Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch—Buch 2: Kaufrecht (rev. ed. 2013). Berlin: Sellier—de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Boehm, F. (2016). Herausforderungen von Cloud Computing-Verträgen: Vertragstypologische Einordnung, Haftung und Eigentum an Daten. ZEuP, 2, 358–387.Google Scholar
  5. Bräutigam, P., & Klindt, T. (2015). Industrie 4.0, das Internet der Dinge und das Recht. NJW, 16, 1137–1142.Google Scholar
  6. Buchner, B. (2006). Informationelle Selbstbestimmung im Privatrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  7. Brückner, B. (2017). In F. J. Säcker, et al. (Eds.). Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch Band 7 (7th ed.). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  8. CJEU. (2004a). 9 September 2004—C-203/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:695—The British Horseracing Board Ltd und andere gegen William Hill Organization Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. CJEU. (2004b). 9 September 2004—C-338/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:696—Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Svenska Spel AB.Google Scholar
  10. CJEU. (2004c). 9 September 2004—C-444/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:697—Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Organismos prognostikon agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP).Google Scholar
  11. CJEU. (2004d). 9 September 2004—C-46/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:694—Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Oy Veikkaus Ab.Google Scholar
  12. CJEU. (2012). 1 March 2012—C-604/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:115—Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Yahoo! UK Ltd and Others.Google Scholar
  13. Court of Appeal. (2013). EWCA Civ 281—Your Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Determann, L. (2018). No one owns data. UC Hastings Research Paper, 265, Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3123957.Google Scholar
  15. Dorner, M. (2014). Big Data und "Dateneigentum". CR, 9, 617–628.Google Scholar
  16. Dreier, T. (2018). In T. Dreier & G. Schulze (Eds.). Urheberrechtsgesetz (5th ed.). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  17. Drexl, J. (2017a). Designing competitive markets for industrial data—between propertisation and access. JIPITEC, 8, 257–292.Google Scholar
  18. Drexl, J. (2017b). Ein Plädoyer für einen wettbewerbspolitischen Ansatz—Teil 1. NZKart, 7, 339–344.Google Scholar
  19. Ensthaler, J. (2016). Industrie 4.0 und die Berechtigung an Daten. NJW, 48, 3473–3478.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission. (2015). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe”, 6 May 2015, COM(2015) 192 final.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2017a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “Building a European data Economy”, 10 January 2017, COM(2017) 9 final.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. (2017b). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data in the European Union, COM(2017) 495 final.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission. (2017c). Staff Working Document on the free flow of data and emerging issues of the European data, 10 January 2017, SWD(2017) 2 final.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission (Ed.). (2017d). Study on emerging issues of data ownership, interoperability, (re-)usability and access to data, and liability. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  25. Grützmacher, M. (2016). Dateneigentum—ein Flickenteppich. CR, 8, 485–495.Google Scholar
  26. Heger, M. (2018). In K. Lackner & K. Kühl (Eds.). Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar (29th ed.). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  27. Heerma, J.-D. (2014). In A.-A. Wandtke & W. Bullinger (Eds.). Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht: UrhR (4th ed.). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  28. Hilgendorf, E. (1996). Grundfälle zum Computerstrafrecht. JuS, 890–894.Google Scholar
  29. Hoeren, T. (2013). Dateneigentum—Versuch einer Anwendung von § 303a StGB im Zivilrecht. MMR, 8, 486–491.Google Scholar
  30. Hoeren, T., & Völkel, J. (2014). In T. Hoeren (Ed.). Big Data und Recht. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  31. Hugenholtz, P. B. (2018). Against "data property". In H. Ullrich, et. al. (Eds.). Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property, 3, 48–71.Google Scholar
  32. ISO/IEC. (2015). 2121272. In ISO/IEC 2382:2015(en).Google Scholar
  33. Jülicher, T. (2015a). Die Aussonderung von (Cloud-)Daten nach § 47 InsO. ZIP, 43, 2063–2066.Google Scholar
  34. Jülicher, T. (2015b). Daten in der Cloud im Insolvenzfall—ein internationaler Überblick. K&R, 7, 448–452.Google Scholar
  35. Kerber, W. (2016). A new (Intellectual) property right for non-personal data? An economic analysis. GRUR Int., 11, 989–998.Google Scholar
  36. Ladeur, K.-H. (2000). Persönlichkeitsschutz und “Comedy”—Das Beispiel der Fälle SAT 1/Stahnke und RTL 2/Schröder. NJW, 28, 1977–1981.Google Scholar
  37. Schulze, G. (2018). In T. Dreier & G. Schulze (Eds.). Urheberrechtsgesetz (5th ed.). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  38. Schwartz, P. M. (2004). Property, privacy and personal data. Harvard Law Review, 117, 2055–2128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Specht, L. (2017). Das Verhältnis zwischen Datenrechten und Datenschutz. GRUR Int., 12, 1040–1047.Google Scholar
  40. Spindler, G. (2016). Digitale Wirtschaft—analoges Recht: Braucht das BGB ein Update? JZ, 17, 805–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stree, W., & Hecker, B. (2014). In A. Schönke & H. Schröder (Eds.). Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar (29th ed.). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  42. Stresemann, C. (2015). In F. J. Säcker, et al. (Eds.). Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch Band 1 (7th. ed.). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  43. Wagner, G. (2017). In F. J. Säcker, et al. (Eds.). Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch Band 6 (7th ed.). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  44. Welp, J. (1988). Datenveränderung (§303a StGB)—Teil 1. IuR, 443–449.Google Scholar
  45. Wiebe, A. (2015). In G. Spindler & F. Schuster (Eds.). Recht der elektronischen Medien: Kommentar (3rd ed.). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  46. Wiebe, A., & Schur, N. (2017). Ein Recht an industriellen Daten im verfassungsrechtlichen Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Eigentumsschutz, Wettbewerbs- und Informationsfreiheit. ZUM, 6, 461–473.Google Scholar
  47. Zech, H. (2015a). Daten als Wirtschaftsgut—Überlegungen zu einem “Recht des Datenerzeugers”. CR, 3, 137–146.Google Scholar
  48. Zech, H. (2015b). “Industrie 4.0”—Rechtsrahmen für eine Datenwirtschaft im digitalen Binnenmarkt. GRUR, 12,1151–1160.Google Scholar
  49. Zieger, C., & Smirra, N. (2013). Fallstricke bei Big Data-Anwendungen—Rechtliche Gesichtspunkte bei der Analyse fremder Datenbestände. MMR, 7, 418–421.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations