On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Charles Oppenheim <CHARLES[_at_]dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Whilst it is true there were compulsory licence provisions in earlier
> drafts, these only referred to information collected by public domain
> organisations (government) or for organisations acting on behalf of
> such public domain bodies. There were never sweeping compulsory
> licence provisions. But even these relatively restricted clauses
> were deleted in the final version.
Thank you for your information on compulsory licensing in the EU database directive.
So, does this mean that the final version by omitting compulsory licensing was intended in some way to prevent future Magill type licensing?
Also, it would follow from your description that public domain organizations were and are intending to apply database protection to their own databases -- is that correct and was someone contemplating that public domain organisations were going to apply database protection to compilations of case law or statutory information?
Alan
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Alan D. Sugarman Federal Appeals on Disc tm CD-ROM :: :: President Opinions of US Courts of Appeals :: :: 1993 to Date - All Circuits :: :: HyperLaw, Inc. Registered Trademark :: :: P.O. Box 1176 DO NOT SHORT CIRCUIT YOUR CLIENTS :: :: New York, NY 10023 :: :: sugarman[_at_]hyperlaw.com 212-787-2812 212-496-4138(fax) :: :: :: :: http://www.hyperlaw.com :: :: :: :: /// /// /// [R] :: :: /// /// /// :: :: /// /// /// :: :: //////////////// /// :: :: //////////////// /// :: :: /// /// /// :: :: /// /// /////////// :: :: /// /// /////////// :: :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Received on Wed Jun 18 1997 - 15:43:19 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:26 GMT