Sui Generis Database Right: Ripe for Review?
Sui Generis Database Right: Ripe for Review?
复制标题
特殊数据库正确：审查时机已经成熟？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Colston
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Colston
在数字时代，非原创的数据收集，特别是电子形式的数据收集，具有新的意义和价值。数字技术还使这种信息收集特别容易被复制。关于数据库的法律的保护的指令为数据库创造了一种新的特殊权利，在这些数据库中，已经（在质量上或数量上）进行了大量投资，以获取、核实或展示内容，防止未经授权的提取或重新使用全部或相当大的一部分。然而，对这类数据库的过度保护可能会使基本信息脱离公共领域，特别是在它构成独家来源的情况下。如果收集信息的动机被搭便车的竞争所破坏，保护不足可能同样具有破坏性。因此，有必要像保护其他知识产权一样，谨慎地平衡对非原创数据库的保护。英国赛马委员会有限公司诉威廉希尔组织案（2001年）证实了对动态数据库及其内容的无限延伸保护。所涉信息属于公共领域，但数据库制作者是其唯一有效的来源。在美国，对信息流动受到抑制的担忧引发了关于数据库保护的辩论，因为版权和不公平竞争对数据库制造商的支持程度较低。因此，新的权利是否鼓励投资于创建数据库以及允许访问数据库存储的信息，是值得怀疑的。该问题是及时的，因为该指令应进行审查。与此同时，世界知识产权组织和美国正在就新的规定进行辩论，上诉法院已将该指令的解释问题提交欧洲法院。现在是重新考虑的时候了，特别是该指令草案提出的对特殊权利的强制许可。或者，可以更好地调整侵权的例外情况，以允许私人使用信息，或者更好的解决办法可能是制定一种不公平竞争法，仅限于寄生行为和不当得利，而不保护基本信息内容。
In a digital era unoriginal collections of data, particularly those in electronic form, have new significance and value. Digital technology also renders such collections of information uniquely vulnerable to copying. The Directive on the legal protection of databases created a new sui generis right for databases in which there has been (qualitatively or quantitatively) substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents against unauthorised extraction or re-use of the whole or a substantial part. However, over-protection of such databases may remove essential information from the public domain, particularly where it constitutes an exclusive source. Under protection may be equally damaging, if the incentive to collate information is undermined by free-riding competition. It is as necessary, therefore, to strike as careful a balance of protection for unoriginal databases as for other intellectual property rights. The case of British Horseracing Board Limited v William Hill Organisation (2001) confirms infinitely extendable protection for dynamic databases, and their contents. The information at issue lay within the public domain, however the database maker constituted its only effective source. Fears of inhibiting information flow have contributed to debate over database protection in the United States, where copyright and unfair competition provide a lesser degree of support to database makers. Consequently, whether the new right encourages investment in creating databases as well as allowing access to database-stored information, is questionable. The question is timely for the Directive is due for review. At the same time both WIPO and the US are debating new provisions, and the Court of Appeal has referred questions of interpretation of the Directive to the European Court of Justice. It is time to reconsider, in particular, the draft Directive's proposed compulsory licences for the sui generis right. Alternatively, the exceptions to infringement could be better adapted to allow for private uses of information, or a better solution might lie in a form of unfair competition law restricted to parasitic conduct and unjust enrichment, without protection for the underlying information content.