When information is boxed who should hold the key?

C. Colston

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article considers the danger of monopoly interests in data engendered by the European legal frameworks which protect the gathering and storing of information, illustrated by the intrepretation of the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom of new sui generis database rights in British Horseracing Board v. William Hill (2001). This article also seeks to demonstrate that this is a wider issue. Paradoxically, technology both facilitates wide access to digitally stored information and gives right owners control over that access. This control is protected both by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Copyright in the Information Society Directive. Competition proceedings do not provide access to a non-competitor. Alternatives lie in compulsory licenses, a 'copy-duty', or expanded copyright and database right exceptions. The Database Directive is under review. Modifying the rights' exceptions may better facilitate a suitable balance between protection and justifiable access. A WIPO Treaty could be a positive and cohesive strategy globally, harmonizing the means of access to information without eroding incentives for collating that data.
LanguageEnglish
Pages221-239
Number of pages18
JournalInformation and Communications Technology Law
Volume11
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2002

Fingerprint

International cooperation
information society
monopoly
license
treaty
appeal
incentive
act

Keywords

  • monopolies
  • european legal frameworks
  • data law
  • digital rights

Cite this

@article{7dfcfdcc04ac4e6ca5d077ef643ac79e,
title = "When information is boxed who should hold the key?",
abstract = "This article considers the danger of monopoly interests in data engendered by the European legal frameworks which protect the gathering and storing of information, illustrated by the intrepretation of the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom of new sui generis database rights in British Horseracing Board v. William Hill (2001). This article also seeks to demonstrate that this is a wider issue. Paradoxically, technology both facilitates wide access to digitally stored information and gives right owners control over that access. This control is protected both by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Copyright in the Information Society Directive. Competition proceedings do not provide access to a non-competitor. Alternatives lie in compulsory licenses, a 'copy-duty', or expanded copyright and database right exceptions. The Database Directive is under review. Modifying the rights' exceptions may better facilitate a suitable balance between protection and justifiable access. A WIPO Treaty could be a positive and cohesive strategy globally, harmonizing the means of access to information without eroding incentives for collating that data.",
keywords = "monopolies, european legal frameworks, data law, digital rights",
author = "C. Colston",
year = "2002",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/1360083022000031911",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "221--239",
journal = "Information and Communications Technology Law",
issn = "1360-0834",
number = "3",

}

When information is boxed who should hold the key? / Colston, C.

In: Information and Communications Technology Law, Vol. 11, No. 3, 01.10.2002, p. 221-239.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - When information is boxed who should hold the key?

AU - Colston, C.

PY - 2002/10/1

Y1 - 2002/10/1

N2 - This article considers the danger of monopoly interests in data engendered by the European legal frameworks which protect the gathering and storing of information, illustrated by the intrepretation of the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom of new sui generis database rights in British Horseracing Board v. William Hill (2001). This article also seeks to demonstrate that this is a wider issue. Paradoxically, technology both facilitates wide access to digitally stored information and gives right owners control over that access. This control is protected both by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Copyright in the Information Society Directive. Competition proceedings do not provide access to a non-competitor. Alternatives lie in compulsory licenses, a 'copy-duty', or expanded copyright and database right exceptions. The Database Directive is under review. Modifying the rights' exceptions may better facilitate a suitable balance between protection and justifiable access. A WIPO Treaty could be a positive and cohesive strategy globally, harmonizing the means of access to information without eroding incentives for collating that data.

AB - This article considers the danger of monopoly interests in data engendered by the European legal frameworks which protect the gathering and storing of information, illustrated by the intrepretation of the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom of new sui generis database rights in British Horseracing Board v. William Hill (2001). This article also seeks to demonstrate that this is a wider issue. Paradoxically, technology both facilitates wide access to digitally stored information and gives right owners control over that access. This control is protected both by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Copyright in the Information Society Directive. Competition proceedings do not provide access to a non-competitor. Alternatives lie in compulsory licenses, a 'copy-duty', or expanded copyright and database right exceptions. The Database Directive is under review. Modifying the rights' exceptions may better facilitate a suitable balance between protection and justifiable access. A WIPO Treaty could be a positive and cohesive strategy globally, harmonizing the means of access to information without eroding incentives for collating that data.

KW - monopolies

KW - european legal frameworks

KW - data law

KW - digital rights

UR - http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/media/3d1xhx4jylckphfevbft/contributions/d/p/d/t/dpdtgqb91g89c61j.pdf

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360083022000031911

U2 - 10.1080/1360083022000031911

DO - 10.1080/1360083022000031911

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 221

EP - 239

JO - Information and Communications Technology Law

T2 - Information and Communications Technology Law

JF - Information and Communications Technology Law

SN - 1360-0834

IS - 3

ER -