Abstract
This chapter looks into the various bills and legislations that have been brought up in the United States in an effort to confer protection to databases. Some of these bills include the Collection of Information Anti-piracy Bill 1999 and the Consumer and Investor Access to Information Bill 1999. This chapter discusses the Bills with regard to the definition of database, unauthorized use, investment, infringement, permitted use, penalty, duration etc. A comparative analysis is also made inter se and with the European Database Directive and Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In both Europe and United States, the general concern of securing effective balance between protection and access of databases however remains.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Conley JÂ M, Brown MÂ M, Bryan R M (2000) Database Protection in a Digital World: Why the United States Should Decline to Follow the European Model. Info & Comm Tech L9(1):49.
- 2.
Id.
- 3.
Colston, supra note 72.
- 4.
S. 1401.
- 5.
S. 1402 (a).
- 6.
Article 7(1).
- 7.
Suthersanen, supra note 336.
- 8.
S. 1401.
- 9.
Phelps CE (1999) before Sub Committee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary. http://www.house.gov/judiciary/106-ct18htm. In: Suthersanen, supra note 336.
- 10.
S. 102.
- 11.
S. 1403 (b).
- 12.
Suthersanen, supra note 336.
- 13.
S. 1403 (b) The Collection of Information Anti-piracy Bill 1999.
- 14.
S. 201.
- 15.
S. 1403.
- 16.
S. 1403.
- 17.
Suthersanen, supra note 336.
- 18.
S. 104 (a).
- 19.
S. 104 (C).
- 20.
S. 104 (e).
- 21.
S. 106 (a) Database Directive does not offer any such exception to facilitate functioning of the Internet though; the Directive does allow exception for public security, judicial procedure and computer program.
- 22.
S. 1403 (e) F or time sensitive information, a separate protection can be curved out. In International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 US 215, the Supreme Court held that Associated Press had a quasi property right in new stories against its competitor International News Service but not against the public. In National Basketball Assoc. v. Motorola Inc, 105 F. 3d.841 the Second Circuit Court did not allow misappropriation action against pager services’ transmission of real time scores from National Basketball Association and held that INS-type claim could sustain only if it involved plaintiff who generates information at cost, information is time sensitive, defendant’s use of information amounts to free riding on plaintiff’s effort, defendant is in direct competition with product or service offered by the plaintiff, ability of other party to free ride on the effort of plaintiff would reduce incentive to produce.
- 23.
S. 1403 (c).
- 24.
S. 1406 (d) and 1407.
- 25.
S. 6, Database Investment and Intellectual Property Piracy Bill 1996.
- 26.
Article 10.
- 27.
Article 16(3).
- 28.
S. 108.
- 29.
Article 1408(c).
- 30.
Reichman, Uhlir (1999) Database Protection at the Crossroads: Recent Developments and Their Impact on Science and Technology. http://www.eon.law.harvard.edu/h20/property/alternatives/reichman.html. In: Colston, supra note 72.
- 31.
Id.
- 32.
Oram. The Sap and the Syrup of the Informaion Age: Coping with Database Protection Laws. Computer Law Reporter, Internet Law and Business 1(5). http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/andyo/professional/collection_law.html. In: Colston, supra note 72.
- 33.
It has been argued that compulsory license constitutes a form of price control and allows competitors to exploit only the most profitable database substituting externally determined rates for those secured by voluntary negotiations. Reasonable compensation shall always be a controversial issue. Tyson, Sherry, Statutory Protection for Databases: Economic and Public Policy Issues. House Judiciary Committee Hearing, 23 Oct 1997. http://wwwhouse.gov/judiciary/41118.htm. In:Colston, supra note 72.
- 34.
IMS Health GmbH & Co. v. NDC Health GmbH & Co., (C-418/01). IMS Health, a world leader in data collection in pharmaceuticals refused to license structure of their collection. The Commission ordered to grant the license.
- 35.
HR 3531.
- 36.
Conley, Brown, Bryan, supra note 566, at 47.
- 37.
HR 2652.
- 38.
Conley, Brown, Bryan, supra note 566, at 48.
- 39.
HR 1858.
- 40.
Section 17 USC.
- 41.
Article 3 WIPO Copyright Treaty.
- 42.
Like 17 USC Section 602 (b).
- 43.
The industry concerns were concisely articulated by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lucas (1998) Database Protection Could be at Forefront of the 106th Congress’s Legislative Effort. US Law Week 67:2355. In Conley, Brown, Bryan, supra note 566, at 27.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mazumder, A. (2016). Aborted American Attempts. In: Database Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2200-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2200-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2199-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2200-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)