Re: Database Right copyrighting ideas.

This is pretty interesting since copying databases derived from public 
information or formally licensed information given to multiple sources 
has been totally authorized under the law in the U.S.

However, there have been reservations. For a human-friendly analysis of 
database copyrights, check out:

http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/review/reviewArticles/30256.html
http://tinyurl.com/yvmb6

Chuck

Andrew A. Adams wrote:
> This week's Out-law.com from Masons (see http://www.out-law.com) features a 
> story on the advice from advocate-general Stix-Hackl to the ECJ on the 
> WIlliam Hill/British Board of Horseracing database case. IMHO, Stix-Hackl is 
> advising that production of a substantial database involving significant 
> effort then gives the database owner the right to sue anyone using any 
> substantial portion of that information without a license, even where the 
> other party compiles their own database out of published information from a 
> variety of sources (which may include those with licenses to publish the 
> data).
> 
> This is a worrying interpretation fot he database right, which was supposed 
> to protect the investment in compiling a database by preventing wholesale 
> copying. The most worrying parts of Stix-Hackl's advice is:
> 
> (quote from Out-law.com's piece)
> Advocate-General Stix-Hackl takes the view, first, that the term database 
> should be interpreted widely for the purposes of the Database Directive.
> ...
> Unlike extraction, however, re-utilisation does not require that the 
> information be obtained from the database itself; rather, the prohibition on 
> reutilisation is also applicable if the data are taken from an independent 
> source, such as a print medium or the internet.
> 
>