DOCSLIB.ORG

146 Final. Encl.: SWD(2018)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
146 Final. Encl.: SWD(2018) Council of the European Union Brussels, 27 April 2018 (OR. en) 8466/18 PI 44 CULT 48 COVER NOTE From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director date of receipt: 26 April 2018 To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union No. Cion doc.: SWD(2018) 146 final Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases Delegations will find attached document SWD(2018) 146 final. Encl.: SWD(2018) 146 final 8466/18 LK/np DGG 3B EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 25.4.2018 SWD(2018) 146 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases {SWD(2018) 147 final} EN EN Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3 1.1. Purpose of the evaluation ................................................................................................ 3 1.2. Scope of the evaluation .................................................................................................... 4 2. BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ...................................................................... 4 2.1 Context of the EU intervention ......................................................................................... 4 2.2 Intervention’s objectives and logic ................................................................................... 5 2.3 Overview of the Database Directive’s provisions ............................................................ 7 3. IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY ............................................................................. 8 4. METHOD ............................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Study to support the evaluation of the Database Directive .............................................. 9 4.2 Stakeholder consultations ................................................................................................. 9 4.3 Literature review ............................................................................................................. 10 4.4 Limitations and robustness of the findings ..................................................................... 11 5. ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ........................... 12 5.1 Current situation ............................................................................................................. 12 5.2 Effectiveness ................................................................................................................... 13 5.2.1 Has the Database Directive eliminated the differences between Member States in the legal protection of databases? ..................................................................................... 13 5.2.2 Has the Database Directive stimulated the investments into the creation of databases? ......................................................................................................................... 15 5.2.3 Has the balance between the legitimate interests of database makers and users been safeguarded? ..................................................................................................................... 19 5.3 Efficiency ........................................................................................................................ 21 5.3.1 Overall analysis of the costs and benefits and regulatory burden induced by the Database Directive ............................................................................................................ 21 5.3.2 Scope of the sui generis right: current situation and simplification potential. ........ 24 5.3.3 Legal uncertainties about the sui generis right ........................................................ 26 5.3.4 Other protection mechanisms for database makers ................................................. 31 5.3.5 Ongoing Digital Single Market legislation’s impact on efficiency ......................... 34 5.4 Relevance ........................................................................................................................ 35 5.4.1 Machine-generated data, digitisation and the sui generis right ............................... 35 5.4.2 What would be the consequences if the current sui generis right extended broadly into the data economy? ..................................................................................................... 37 1 5.5 Coherence ....................................................................................................................... 40 5.5.1 Interplay with the Public Sector Information Directive ........................................... 40 5.5.2 Coherence with EU’s Open Data policies for research activities ............................ 42 5.5.3 Coherence with other relevant copyright acquis ..................................................... 43 5.5.4 Coherence with the Trade Secrets Directive ............................................................ 43 5.6 What is the EU added value of the intervention? ........................................................... 45 6. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 46 Annex 1: Procedural information ............................................................................................. 48 Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation: the Synopsis Report ........................................................ 51 Annex 3: Selected Evidence from the Study ............................................................................ 61 Annex 4: Selected Bibliography .............................................................................................. 83 Annex 5: Legal Sources ........................................................................................................... 85 Annex 6: Research Questions .................................................................................................. 87 2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Purpose of the evaluation This Staff Working Document provides the results of the REFIT1 evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases (‘the Database Directive’)2. In line with the Better Regulation guidelines3, the evaluation assesses the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value of the Database Directive, analysing whether it remains fit for purpose in the new legal, economic and technological environment. The evaluation also arises from Article 16(3) of the Database Directive, which specifies that the Commission should in particular examine periodically whether the application of this sui generis right contained in the Database Directive, which protects ‘non-original’ sui generis databases, has led to significant interference with free competition. The last evaluation report of the Database Directive, (hereinafter ‘the 2005 Report‘) that took place in 20054, concluded that, while the sui generis right had no proven positive or negative effects on the growth of the ‘database industry’, the Database Directive had largely achieved its harmonisation objectives. Therefore, despite the conceptual shortcomings of the right, no ‘significant administrative or other regulatory burdens on the database industry or any other industries that depend on having access to data and information’5 had been detected, and so no intervention was deemed necessary. An important factor highlighted by the 2005 Report was the limitation imposed by the seminal 2004 rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)6. These, it concluded, significantly reduced the scope of the sui generis right to ‘primary’ producers of databases, which at that time were generally part of copyright industries (e.g. publishing companies). If database production was only secondary to the main activity of the entity, it was assumed that this entity would be left out of the scope of protection. This would avoid any significantly negative situations where data and information would be locked up to the detriment of overall social welfare (e.g. access for lawful competitors, research organisations). The main purpose of this evaluation is to assess whether these conclusions are still valid. It conducts a more in-depth analysis of the potential legal causes behind the economic 1 The Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme, or REFIT, is the Commission’s programme for ensuring that EU legislation remains fit for purpose and delivers the results intended by EU lawmakers. 2 Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. 3 European Commission, Better Regulation: Guidelines and Toolbox. https://ec.europa.eu/info/better-regulation- guidelines-and-toolbox_en. 4 European Commission,, DG Internal Market, First evaluation of the Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases (2005). 5 Ibid p. 6. 6 Fixtures Marketing Ltd v. Oy Veikkaus Ab (C-46/02, 9/11/2004), Fixtures Marketing Ltd v. Svenska Spel Ab (C-338/02, 9/11/2004) British Horseracing Board Ltd v. William Hill (C-203/02, 9/11/2004) Fixtures Marketing Ltd v. OPAP (C-444/02, 9/11/2004). 3 performance of the sui generis right and places that analysis in the context of the data economy. Indeed, in its 2017 communication, Building a European Data Economy7, the Commission, while
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On the Treatment of the Sui Generis Database Rights in Version 3.0 of the Creative Commons Licenses
    On the treatment of the sui generis database rights in Version 3.0 of the Creative Commons licenses. Background: Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (the "Database Directive") created a new basis for the protection of databases ("sui generis database protection") not previously recognized under copyright law. The database directive has by now been implemented by the 25 member states of the EU (plus some of the countries such as Norway that are part of the European Economic Area - EEA). Outside of Europe there is no sui generis protection of Databases. In some countries (for example Germany) the database directive has been implemented as part of the national copyright act, while others (such as the Netherlands) have chosen to implement via a separate act (in this case the database act). The lawmakers of the European Union decided that in order to provide greater protection to collections of information they should have a unified legal protection for databases. To this end, they created a sui generis right called database right. The database right lasts for 15 years under this regime, but can be extended if the database is updated. Database rights prevent copying of substantial parts of a database (including frequent extraction of insubstantial parts). However unlike copyright the protection of the database right is not over the form of expression of information but of the information itself [source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_rights]. Prior to Version 3.0, some localized and translated versions of the Creative Commons licenses (Belgium, Netherlands, France and Germany) contained references to national legislation passed pursuant to the Database Directive, by defining a "work" to include databases protected by these laws.
    [Show full text]
  • A Criticism of the E.U. Directive Protecting Computer Software
    Buffalo Journal of International Law Volume 3 Number 2 Article 5 1-1-1997 A Criticism of the E.U. Directive Protecting Computer Software Robert Shaposka Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bjil Part of the European Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Shaposka, Robert (1997) "A Criticism of the E.U. Directive Protecting Computer Software," Buffalo Journal of International Law: Vol. 3 : No. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bjil/vol3/iss2/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact lawscholar@buffalo.edu. A CRITICISM OF THE E.U. DIRECTIVE PROTECTING COMPUTER SOFTWARE Robert Shaposka* I. INTRODUCTION Computer technology offers a vision of humankind's future - a "sneak peek" into the culture of tomorrow. Disheartening, however, is the chasm separating computer related legislation and the realities underpinning the computer world's actual practices. Early legal protection of computers was general and basic. Often legislatures treated computers as pure goods; an oversimplified approach incompatible with the unusual international market forces affecting the fledgling industry. Computers no longer fit within a neat definition of goods, as Charles Levy writes: If you look at the computer industry in the world.. .the hardware is not the money maker for computers (sic) companies any more.
    [Show full text]
  • Directive 96/9/Ec
    DIRECTIVE 96/9/EC (Database Directive) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases [Introductory remarks] 1. General. The Database Directive has created a two-tier protection regime for electronic and non-electronic databases. Member States are to pro- tect databases by copyright as intellectual creations (Chapter 2), and provide for a sui generis right (database right) to protect the contents of a database in which the producer has substantially invested (Chapter 3). Both rights may apply cumulatively if the prerequisites for both regimes are fulfilled. The introduction of sui generis protection was considered necessary after supreme courts in the Netherlands and the US had held that copyright does not protect databases reflecting merely economic investment or intellectual effort (see Feist (US) and Van Dale (Netherlands)). Prior to implementation, intellectual property protection for non-original compilations existed in just a few Member States (the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden and the Nether- lands). Many Member States provided only for unfair competition remedies, to be applied in special circumstances, or no remedies at all. However, the absence of a harmonized legal framework for unfair competition in Europe necessitated the introduction of a sui generis right to complement copyright protection for databases (recital 6). 2. Harmonization. The Directive is based on arts. 47(2), 55 and 95 of the EC Treaty, and is aimed at harmonizing the legal protection of databases across the European Community. The copyright chapter of the Directive harmonizes the originality standard for databases, which prior to the implementation dif- fered greatly between Member States, especially between countries of the authors’ right tradition where a measure of creativity, personal character or personal imprint was required, and the two Member States (Ireland and the UK) of the British copyright tradition where mere skill and labour sufficed.
    [Show full text]
  • Search Engines and Databases in the Search for a Balance: the AG's
    Search engines and databases in the search for a balance: the AG’s Opinion in the ‘CV- Online Latvia’ case Kluwer Copyright Blog February 22, 2021 Tatiana Synodinou (University of Cyprus) Please refer to this post as: Tatiana Synodinou, ‘Search engines and databases in the search for a balance: the AG’s Opinion in the ‘CV-Online Latvia’ case’, Kluwer Copyright Blog, February 22 2021, http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/02/22/search-engines-and-databases-in-the-search-for-a-balance-t he-ags-opinion-in-the-cv-online-latvia-case/ On 14 January 2021, Advocate General (AG) Szpunar delivered his Opinion in Case C‑762/19, SIA ‘CV-Online Latvia’ v SIA ‘Melons’, a further case relating to the databasesui generis right. The application of the sui generis right to the activity of search engines was the main question raised in this case. Specifically, a specialist search engine for job advertisements operated by Melons (‘KurDarbs.lv’) referred users by means of hyperlinks to the websites on which the information sought was initially published, including CV-Online’s website. In this context, CV-Online brought proceedings against Melons for infringement of its sui generis right over its database. In an inspiring Opinion, the AG, having scrutinised the details of the functioning of Melons’ search engine, proposed a thoughtful recalibration of the conditions of application of the sui generis right on the grounds of its justification as a legal mechanism against the creation of parasitical competing products (par. 40 of the Opinion). CV-Online Latvia and Innoweb: different functionalities, different cases? The facts were a priori comparable to the facts of the CJEU’s ruling in the Innoweb caseC‑202/12 which concerned the breach of the databasesui generis right by a meta search engine that specialised in advertisements for used cars.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 34, Digest Spring 2021 I
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 34, Digest Spring 2021 THE RIGHT TO PROCESS DATA FOR MACHINE LEARNING PURPOSES IN THE EU Mauritz Kop* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 1 II. MACHINE LEARNING & THE EUROPEAN DATA GOVERNANCE ACT ................................................................... 3 III. LEGAL PROBLEMS REGARDING DATA ACCESS, SHARING AND RE-USE .............................................................................. 5 IV. LEGAL SOLUTIONS ..................................................................... 7 V. NORMATIVE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR OPEN INNOVATION ......... 9 VI. A RIGHT TO PROCESS DATA .................................................. 13 VII. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR ......................................................... 17 VIII. ARGUMENTS AGAINST ......................................................... 18 IX. ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... 20 X. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 21 I. INTRODUCTION Data is a primary resource. It is a means of existence for AI and a necessity of life for humanity. In its data strategy, the European Union (EU) recognizes the crucial importance of data for machine learning purposes. Machine learning is an exigency for a vibrant artificial intelligence (AI) ecosystem. In AI, machine learning algorithms and data work together in unison. Data wants to be exchanged1, to be accessed, shared
    [Show full text]
  • EXPLORING EUROPEAN UNION COPYRIGHT POLICY THROUGH the LENS of the DATABASE DIRECTIVE by Miriam Bittont
    EXPLORING EUROPEAN UNION COPYRIGHT POLICY THROUGH THE LENS OF THE DATABASE DIRECTIVE By Miriam Bittont TABLE OF CONTENTS I. IN T R O D U C T IO N .................................................................................. 1412 II. OVERVIEW OF EUROPEAN UNION COPYRIGHT POLICY ..... 1413 A. ANGLO-AMERICAN COPYRIGHT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTHOR'S RIGHTS INCONTINENTAL COPYRIGHT ........................... 1413 B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFORMATION SOCIETY ............................... 1415 III. THE FORMULATION OF THE DATABASE DIRECTIVE ............ 1419 A. THE STATE OF PROTECTION FOR COMPILATIONS PRIOR TO THE D ATABASE D IRECTIVE ...................................................................... 1420 B. THE EMERGENCE OF DATABASE PROTECTION AS A POLICY M A TTER ............................................................................................1422 C. THE FORMULATION PROCESS: FROM PROPOSAL TO DIRECTIVE ...... 1427 1. Settling on Sui Generis Protection............................................. 1427 2. Pre-ProposalD iscussions.......................................................... 1430 3. The Commission DatabaseProposal ......................................... 1432 4. The Proposaland Its Amended Text .......................................... 1436 5. The Council Common Position.................................................. 1439 6. The Adopted DatabaseDirective ............................................... 1443 D. TREATMENT OF DATABASES UNDER THE DATABASE D IRECTIV E ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter9 ILS37.Pdf
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Something Completely Different: Europe’s Sui Generis Database Right Hugenholtz, P.B. Publication date 2016 Document Version Final published version Published in The Internet and the Emerging Importance of New Forms of Intellectual Property License Unspecified Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Hugenholtz, P. B. (2016). Something Completely Different: Europe’s Sui Generis Database Right. In S. Frankel, & D. Gervais (Eds.), The Internet and the Emerging Importance of New Forms of Intellectual Property (pp. 205-222). (Information Law Series; Vol. 37). Wolters Kluwer. http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Chapter9_ILS37.pdf General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:02 Oct 2021 The Internet and the Emerging Importance of New Forms of Intellectual Property Edited by Susy Frankel Daniel Gervais Published by: Kluwer Law International B.V.
    [Show full text]
  • A Layman's Guide to EC Law on Digital Preservation
    A layman’s guide to EC law on digital preservation Intellectual Property Rights and Digital Preservation Wills Hall, Bristol 21 st November 2011 David Anderson Future-Proof Computing Group University of Portsmouth Background Memory Organisations: Commercial Organisations: Game Developers: University: Legal Consultants: Background The KEEP project undertook legal studies to ensure: Our understanding of the law as it applies to digital preservation: Generally Media Transfer Multimedia Works Legal Deposit The tools and services we produce fall clearly within the law The Legal Studies were/are not an end in itself, but a means to an end The law is very complex but….. the overall message is relatively clear Health Warning! This is a LAYMAN’S GUIDE to the law To the best of our knowledge the report is legally accurate but….. The conclusions presented are not as subtle or nuanced as the advice which a lawyer would give Courts (not researchers) determine how the law is actually to be interpreted Our findings are not legally definitive A Complicated Legal Landscape National Law Community Law International Law Trade and other conventions The Legal Corpus: A problem of scale Legislation at the National Level (United Kingdom): Keyword Pieces of legislation Copyright >200 Software >200 Database 167 Intellectual Property Rights 163 Trademark 74 The EC Legal Corpus Key Legislation at the Community Level includes: The Information Society Directive Directive 2001/29/ EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT and COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the Harmonization of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society
    COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 10.12.1997 COM(97) 628 final 97/0359 (COD) Proposal for a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the Information Society (presented by the Commission) EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM Introduction l. The present D1rective aims to provide a harmonized and appropriate legal framework for copyright and related rights in the Information Society It adjusts and complements the existing framework so as to ensure the smooth functioning of the Internal Market and bring about a favourable environment which protects and stimulates creativity and innovative activities within the Community. 2. The Commission has clearly identified intellectual property protection as a key issue given the critical role creative content and innovation will play in the further development of the Information Society1. The Green Paper of 19 July 19952 focused the debate on the challenges to copyright and related rights brought about by the new technologies. Following its publication, the Commission received input through more than 3 50 written submissions. in the context of a hearing in Brussels on 8 and 9 January 19963 and through numerous bilateral contacts with all parties concerned. The consultation process was concluded at a conference organized by the Commission in Florence from 2 to 4 June 19964 3 The consultation confirmed that the existing Community framework on copyright and related rights, although not explicitly shaped for the features of the Information Society, will be of crucial relevance for this new technological environment. However, it needs adaptation: all categories of rightholders and their intermediaries expressed concern over new uses of protected material in ways that are not authorized or not foreseen under existing laws in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • Database Protection: Lessons from Europe, Congress, and WIPO
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 57 Issue 4 Article 9 February 2016 Database Protection: Lessons from Europe, Congress, and WIPO Mark Davison Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mark Davison, Database Protection: Lessons from Europe, Congress, and WIPO, 57 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 829 () Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol57/iss4/9 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. DATABASE PROTECTION: LESSONS FROM EUROPE, CONGRESS, AND WIPO t Mark Davison In 1996, the European Community ("the EC") adopted a Directive on the legal protection of databases ("the Directive"),' ostensibly with the aim of increasing the production of databases within the EC.2 Most members of the EC transposed the Directive into their domestic legislation in 1998 and all of them had done so by the end of 2000. In 2005, an evaluation of the Directive by the EC concluded that there was no proven impact of the Directive on the production of databases. So an entirely new intellectual property right was created with its attendant costs and the evidence suggests that no benefit was gained from its creation. It is difficult to draw any conclusion other than that the adoption of the Directive was a mistake. t Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Report Netherlands
    Country Report: Denmark Annual report to the IFLA CLM committee Quebec Canada 2008 Copyright Revision of copyright law New legislation Orphan works The Danish Parliament finalized a series of amendments to the copyright law. The main change was the introduction of a general authorization to the collecting societies to make extended collective license agreements. So far this has only been possible in certain specific cases mentioned in the law. This general authorization will enable collecting societies to conclude license agreements on the basis of extended collecting licensing for the use of works – including digital copying and making available to the public of orphan works. Public lending rights No changes Legal deposit The revision of the law on Legal Deposit was postponed to 2010. Levies No changes Creative Commons This is not regarded as a matter for the legislature. Every author or rights owner is free to give permission and to specify the terms for the use of his works. Creative Commons is just one way of using this right. Legal matters Revision of law New legislation Trade agreements No changes Privacy No changes Anti terrorist law September 15th 2007 a new anti terrorist regulation came into force. It obliges Internet service providers and Telecoms to archive internet traffic data and information on e-mail and telephone communications, i.e. IP addresses, e-mail dresses and telephone numbers of the sender and receiver of the communication, and the date and time when the communication took place. The data have to be archived for one year. DRM Nothing Law cases We had a court case on infringement of database right.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Information and Competition Concerns Enter the Sui Generis Right’S Infringement Test – the CJEU Redefines the Database Right
    Access to information and competition concerns enter the sui generis right’s infringement test – The CJEU redefines the database right Kluwer Copyright Blog June 17, 2021 Martin Husovec (London School of Economics) and Estelle Derclaye (The University of Nottingham) Please refer to this post as: Martin Husovec and Estelle Derclaye, ‘Access to information and competition concerns enter the sui generis right’s infringement test – The CJEU redefines the database right’, Kluwer Copyright Blog, June 17 2021, http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/17/access-to-information-and-competition-concerns-enter-the-s ui-generis-rights-infringement-test-the-cjeu-redefines-the-database-right/ On 3 June 2021, the CJEU handed down its judgment in CV-Online Latvia v Melons (with Ilešič as a reporting judge), a case involving Melons’ infringement of CV-Online Latvia’s database of job advertisements arguably protected by the sui generis right. The facts of the case are expertly described by TatianaSynodinou in her comment on the AG’s Opinion and we refer the readers to them. In a nutshell, a specialist search engine engaging in re-use of substantial parts of the database of a job adverts website was accused of violating sui generis database right. Unlike in Innoweb (with von Danwitz as a reporting judge), this specialist search engine does not use the search function of said website but develops its own way to explore the dataset. Moreover, the user is only offered deep links. Judgment The referring Latvian court posed two questions. First, whether the display of hyperlinks constitutes re- utilization, and second, whether the re-use of meta tags can qualify as extraction.
    [Show full text]