<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The MTTLR Blog &#187; databases</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mttlrblog.org/tag/databases/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mttlrblog.org</link>
	<description>Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:42:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Data Sharing and the Digital Science Commons</title>
		<link>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2008/08/29/data-sharing-and-the-digital-science-commons/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2008/08/29/data-sharing-and-the-digital-science-commons/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[databases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[p2p]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scholarship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mttlrblog.org/?p=38</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by: Mustafa Ünlü, Associate Editor, MTTLR
I. The curiously chameleonic properties of data ownership

Image Protein models by Alan Wolf.Used under a Creative Commons BY-NC-CA 2.0 license.
 Data 1 is both the primary output as well as the most vital input of the scientific process. In fact, data sharing performs such a key role2 that without a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:munlu@umich.edu">Mustafa Ünlü</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span></p>
<h2>I. The curiously chameleonic properties of data ownership</h2>
<p>
<div style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0px; float: left; width: 130px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_32Qv2eMyC3U/SLwmP4fB8DI/AAAAAAAAABU/flODuWnhO24/s1600-h/unlu-datasharingProtein.jpg"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_32Qv2eMyC3U/SLwmP4fB8DI/AAAAAAAAABU/flODuWnhO24/s320/unlu-datasharingProtein.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5241106120654843954" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/alumroot/47729306/">Protein models</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/alumroot/">Alan Wolf</a>.<br />Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-ca/2.0/deed.en">BY-NC-CA 2.0</a> license.</span></div>
<p> Data <a name="unluFN1anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN1sym"><sup>1</sup></a> is both the primary output as well as the most vital input of the scientific process. In fact, data sharing performs such a key role<a name="unluFN2anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN2sym"><sup>2</sup></a> that without a commons based on publicly shared data, scientific progress would surely suffer.<a name="unluFN3anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN3sym"><sup>3</sup></a> In addition, data forms the foundation for downstream commercial applications aimed at privatizing the fruits of the scientific enterprise.<a name="unluFN4anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN4sym"><sup>4</sup></a> Yet, despite their importance, data ownership rules are subject to a unique, inchoate IP regime which is neither copyright, patent, nor trademark. Moreover, these rules change over time, depending on whether the data has been published. Prior to publication, most data is treated as proprietary and secret.<a name="unluFN5anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN5sym"><sup>5</sup></a> At this early stage, data sharing is governed by informal norms, which are enforced, if at all, under a minimal, liability rule-based legal infrastructure.<a name="unluFN6anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN6sym"><sup>6</sup></a> After publication, data loses its protected status and becomes a part of the public domain. At this later stage, data sharing comes under a default rule of open and free access.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has confirmed that copyright does not, and was not meant to, protect published data.<a name="unluFN7anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN7sym"><sup>7</sup></a> The Court&#8217;s rationale rests on principles that uphold the commons. “The very object of publishing a book on science or the useful arts is to communicate to the world the useful knowledge which it contains. But this object would be frustrated if the knowledge could not be used without incurring the guilt of piracy of the book.”<a name="unluFN8anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN8sym"><sup>8</sup></a> In spite of the commitment to open access after publication, post-publication privatization inevitably leads to interactions between upstream data sharing and exclusive IP rights.<a name="unluFN9anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN9sym"><sup>9</sup></a></p>
<h2>II. Data sharing under stress</h2>
<p>This unique data ownership IP regime, which has arguably been in place for centuries,<a name="unluFN10anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN10sym"><sup>10</sup></a> is coming under increasing pressure in two separate ways. The rate at which the commons is becoming privatized is decreasing the incentives to share, while the data itself, due to the growing size and complexity of outputs, is becoming harder to disseminate. Scholars have noted that accelerating commercialization of downstream inventions has undermined informal sharing norms for unpublished data.<a name="unluFN11anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN11sym"><sup>11</sup></a> At the same time, technological advances have caused “fundamental shifts in the practices and structures of scholarly communication”<a name="unluFN12anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN12sym"><sup>12</sup></a> as data has “become more complex, more extensive, more elaborate [and] more community-based.”<a name="unluFN13anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN13sym"><sup>13</sup></a> These disparate sources of stress have combined to bring about a “sea change” in the “nature of biological inquiry” and scientific norms related to data sharing.<a name="unluFN14anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN14sym"><sup>14</sup></a> As a result, the science commons has not benefited from the Internet-enabled efficiency gains which have brought about tremendous advances in the applied technology and commercial spheres such as those attained by Google in its search engine implementation.<a name="unluFN15anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN15sym"><sup>15</sup></a></p>
<p>This post limits itself to analyzing the liability ramifications of a technological solution to the second problem – that of  burgeoning datasets of increasing size and complexity (“BDISCs”) as obstacles to scientific progress.  A digital infrastructure that allows wide-spread sharing of BDISCs throughout the scientific community may contribute to the future shape of the commons in ways that go beyond simply fixing the problem at hand by causing the scientific community to reconsider and revamp the rules of data ownership in both the pre- and post-publication stages, but that subject matter is better left for exploration at a later time.</p>
<h2>III. Tranche: A peer-to-peer (P2P) data sharing solution to the BDISC problem</h2>
<p>Though certain specialized disciplines have already implemented norms of data sharing, enforced by either journal editors or policy guidelines,<a name="unluFN16anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN16sym"><sup>16</sup></a> technological solutions for enabling access to and propagating BDISCs have lagged behind. Thus, at the cutting edges of research, in areas such as genomics and proteomics, the BDISC problem is the most severe. Such projects are growing more complex and interdisciplinary and are generating increasingly larger and richer datasets.<a name="unluFN17anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN17sym"><sup>17</sup></a> It is here that the scientific community&#8217;s need to share, access, and annotate data is the greatest.</p>
<p>In the proteomics arena, one technological solution to this problem has been to deploy a novel, P2P based network for data sharing.<a name="unluFN18anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN18sym"><sup>18</sup></a> Tranche combines the sharing efficiency and scalability of a BitTorrent network with a secure, encrypted storage system that allows data owners to retain control of disclosure.<a name="unluFN19anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN19sym"><sup>19</sup></a> As a free, open source tool, Tranche has gained acceptance in the community and, as of this writing, is hosting several thousand proteomics-related datasets.<a name="unluFN20anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN20sym"><sup>20</sup></a> It is worth adding that though Tranche was developed to address problems of data sharing in the proteomics context, the solution it embodies should be generally applicable across all scientific disciplines.</p>
<p>Tranche promises to enhance and change the manner in which the science commons is constructed. It enables temporal persistence of  large-scale data and its associated identifiers and annotations, a very desirable improvement which is otherwise challenging to implement under the traditional print-based data sharing systems. It allows instant and widespread data sharing and gives the data owner the ability to choose from various licenses under which data is shared.<a name="unluFN21anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN21sym"><sup>21</sup></a> Content owners can further control access by selective distribution of decryption keys and allowing access to either the entire community or a designated group or individuals. Thus, once granted, access privileges can also be amended over time. In this way, Tranche permits the continued operation of the pre-publication, informal rules of data sharing as well as the post-publication commitment to the public domain. Fully exploring the impact of an infrastructure that allows access to data by the entire scientific community in an immediate, efficient, near-zero cost manner at all stages of publication is, as mentioned, beyond the scope of this post. I will instead end with a  brief examination of the liability ramifications of deploying a free P2P network for data sharing.</p>
<h2>IV. Liability ramifications of widespread use of P2P scientific data sharing networks</h2>
<p>Due to  involvement in several high-profile copyright infringement cases (where the operators lost), P2P networks do not currently enjoy a  good reputation with content owners.<a name="unluFN22anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN22sym"><sup>22</sup></a> One obstacle Tranche faces in gaining widespread acceptance could therefore lie in the perception that it might potentially enable the sharing of infringing content. Liability for Tranche operators would be based on a theory of inducement to infringe, as articulated by the Supreme Court in its landmark P2P decision.<a name="unluFN23anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN23sym"><sup>23</sup></a> Tranche has several features that undercut such an inducement theory. First, unlike the defendants in <i>Grokster</i>, Tranche operators neither advertise nor otherwise encourage infringing activity. In fact, the opposite is true &#8211; Tranche is first and foremost a tool to share large datasets. Any sharing activity not related to this primary goal would be unwelcome since it would degrade the network&#8217;s performance.  Tranche is also well-suited to removing infringing content and users (provided that they can be identified) since uploading privileges are granted at the discretion of the operator and may be revoked.<a name="unluFN24anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN24sym"><sup>24</sup></a> Finally, in a long line of cases involving technological tools capable of being used in a non-permissible manner, courts have recognized that liability does not attach to the developer of the tool “if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.”<a name="unluFN25anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN25sym"><sup>25</sup></a> There is no question that Tranche is not merely capable of such use, but that a substantial portion of its actual use is for legitimate purposes. Therefore, any liability concerns for deploying and/or using Tranche based on its P2P nature should be minimal.</p>
<h2>V. A digitalized science commons</h2>
<p>The manner in which scientists share data has a vitally important influence on the shape and scope of the science commons. In other words, the commons is shaped both by the rules under which it operates and the technology that enables it. Though existing rules and technology   have stayed fairly constant for a very long time, both are under pressure to change from various quarters. Tranche is a P2P solution  that utilizes Internet technology to modernize data sharing at a fundamental level. As either Tranche or a similar tool gains widespread acceptance and use in the community, the scientific commons will take a big step towards becoming entirely digital. Even though Tranche fits in with and allows the continued operation of existing rules of data sharing, it also provides more options and flexibility to both producers and consumers of the commons. This, in turn, will also almost certainly require a re-thinking of the rules governing data sharing. Tranche&#8217;s technological capabilities should allow the community to move with equal ease towards a more market-based model favoring privatization, as advocated by at least one scholar,<a name="unluFN26anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2707677879553737512&amp;postID=8333041217285968837#unluFN26sym"><sup>26</sup></a> or to stick with and expand upon the commons ideal.</p>
<hr /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><a NAME="unluFN1sym" HREF="#unluFN1anc"><b>1</b></a>. For the purposes of this post, &ldquo;Data&rdquo; may be defined as &ldquo;experimental observations, results and related research methodologies.&rdquo; <i>See also</i> <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, <a href="http://www.cirm.ca.gov/faq/pdf/IPPNPO.pdf">Intellectual Property Policy for Non-Profit Organizations</a></span>, 2-3, (PDF)(defining &ldquo;Data&rdquo; and &ldquo;Biological Materials&rdquo;).<br /><a NAME="unluFN2sym" HREF="#unluFN2anc"><b>2</b></a>. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Comm. on Responsibilities of Authorship in the Biological Scis., Nat&#8217;l Research Council, Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials</span>, 1, 21 (2003), <i>available at </i>http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10613 [hereinafter <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Sharing</span>] (&ldquo;The publication of experimental results and sharing of research materials related to those results have long been key elements of the life sciences.&rdquo;); <a NAME="unluFN2Asym"></a>John Wilbanks, <i><a href="http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/cyberinfrastructure-for-knowledge-sharing/">Cyberinfrastructure For Knowledge Sharing</i>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Ctwatch Quarterly</span></a>, Aug. 2007, [hereinafter <i>Cyberinfrastructure</i>] (&ldquo;Knowledge sharing is at the root of scholarship and science.&rdquo;).<br /><a NAME="unluFN3sym" HREF="#unluFN3anc"><b>3</b></a>. Sir Isaac Newton&#8217;s aphorism &ldquo;If I have seen further, it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants,&rdquo; is often quoted as embodying this principle, but the origins of the concept precede him. <i>See</i> <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Robert K. Merton, On the Shoulders of Giants</span>, 9 (Univ. of Chi. Press 1993), <i>available publicly at</i> <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=o90uC4jMw1EC">http://books.google.com/books?id=o90uC4jMw1EC</a>.<br /><a NAME="unluFN4sym" HREF="#unluFN4anc"><b>4</b></a>. Richard R. Nelson, <i>The market economy, and the scientific commons</i>, 33 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Res. Pol&#8217;y.</span> 455, 457-59 (2004).<br /><a NAME="unluFN5sym" HREF="#unluFN5anc"><b>5</b></a>. The exception is large-scale government funded projects with formalized data sharing goals. J.H. Reichman &amp; Paul F. Uhlir, <i>A Contractually Reconstructed Commons for Scientific Data in a Highly Protectionist Intellectual Property Environment</i>,<i> </i>66-SPG L. &amp; <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Contemp. Probs.</span> 315, 333-36 (2003).<br /><a NAME="unluFN6sym" HREF="#unluFN6anc"><b>6</b></a>. <i>See id. </i>at 349-51 (discussing the legal regime that governs the zone of informal data exchange amongst scientists).<br /><a NAME="unluFN7sym" HREF="#unluFN7anc"><b>7</b></a>. <i>See</i> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm">Feist Publ&#8217;ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.</a>, 499 U.S. 340, 349-350, (1991) (&ldquo;[R]aw facts may be copied at will. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.&rdquo;).<br /><a NAME="unluFN8sym" HREF="#unluFN8anc"><b>8</b></a>. <i>Id.</i> at 350, <i>quoting</i> <a href="http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/101/101.US.99.html">Baker v. Selden</a>, 101 U.S. 99, 103 (1880).<br /><a NAME="unluFN9sym" HREF="#unluFN9anc"><b>9</b></a>. David W. Opderbeck, <i>The Penguin&#8217;s Genome, or Coase and Open Source Biotechnology</i>, 18 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Harv. J. L. &amp; Tech.</span> 167, 173-87 (2004) (discussing the various ways recent changes in IP protections effect the biotechnology commons).<br /><a NAME="unluFN10sym" HREF="#unluFN10anc"><b>10</b></a>. <a href="#unluFN2sym"><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Sharing</span>, <i>supra</i> note 2,</a> at 27; <a href="#unluFN2Asym"><i>Cyberinfrastructure</i>, supra note 2 </a> (&ldquo;[T]his system has served science extraordinarily well over the more than three hundred years since scholarly journals were birthed.&rdquo;).<br /><a NAME="unluFN11sym" HREF="#unluFN11anc"><b>11</b></a>. Rebecca Eisenberg, <i>Proprietary Rights and the Norms of Science in Biotechnology Research</i>, 97 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Yale L.J.</span> 177, 177 (1987). <a href="#unluFN4sym">Nelson, <i>supra</i> note 4</a>, at 455.<br /><a NAME="unluFN12sym" HREF="#unluFN12anc"><b>12</b></a>. Clifford Lynch, <i>The Shape of the Scientific Article in The Developing  Cyberinfrastructure</i>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Ctwatch Quarterly</span>, Aug. 2007, http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/the-shape-of-the-scientific-article-in-the-developing-cyberinfrastructure/<br /><a NAME="unluFN13sym" HREF="#unluFN13anc"><b>13</b></a>. <i>Id.</i><br /><a NAME="unluFN14sym" HREF="#unluFN14anc"><b>14</b></a>. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Nat&#8217;l Research Council, Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research</span>, 1 (2006), <i>available at</i> http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11487 [hereinafter <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Reaping</span>].<br /><a NAME="unluFN15sym" HREF="#unluFN15anc"><b>15</b></a>. <a href="#unluFN2Asym"><i>Cyberinfrastructure</i>, <i>supra</i> note 2</a> (&ldquo;The materials that underpin [data], are &#8216;dark&#8217; to the Web, invisible, and not subject to the efficiency gains we take for granted in the consumer world.&rdquo;).<br /><a NAME="unluFN16sym" HREF="#unluFN16anc"><b>16</b></a>. <i>See, e.g.</i> <a href="#unluFN2sym"><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Sharing,</span> <i>supra</i> note 2</a>, at 4; <a href="#unluFN12sym">Lynch, <i>supra</i> note 12</a> (&ldquo;[S]pecific communities . . . have established norms, enforced by the editorial policies of their journals, which call for deposit of specific types of data within an international system of data repositories.&rdquo;).<br /><a NAME="unluFN17sym" HREF="#unluFN17anc"><b>17</b></a>. <a href="#unluFN14sym"><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Reaping</span>, <i>supra</i> note 14</a>, at 42.<br /><a NAME="unluFN18sym" HREF="#unluFN18anc"><b>18</b></a>. Tranche Project Homepage &#8211; Secure Scientific Data Dissemination, <a href="http://tranche.proteomecommons.org/">http://tranche.proteomecommons.org/</a>, (last visited Aug. 28, 2008).<br /><a NAME="unluFN19sym" HREF="#unluFN19anc"><b>19</b></a>. <i>Id.</i><br /><a NAME="unluFN20sym" HREF="#unluFN20anc"><b>20</b></a>. <i>Id.</i><br /><a NAME="unluFN21sym" HREF="#unluFN21anc"><b>21</b></a>. Tranche Project &#8211; Quick Start: Uploading Data<a href="http://tranche.proteomecommons.org/users/quickstart-upload.html">http://tranche.proteomecommons.org/users/quickstart-upload.html</a>, (last visited Aug. 28, 2008).<br /><a NAME="unluFN22sym" HREF="#unluFN22anc"><b>22</b></a>. Mark G. Tratos, <i>The Impact of the Internet &amp; Digital Media on the Entertainment Industry</i>, 896 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Prac. L. Inst. </span> 133, 234 (2007) (&ldquo;[W]here peer-to-peer filing sharing companies were once ignoring (and in some cases, promoting) illegal file-sharing, these same companies are scrambling to establish a reputation as friends and advocates of copyright holders.&rdquo;). <br /><a NAME="unluFN23sym" HREF="#unluFN23anc"><b>23</b></a>. <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.</a>, 545 U.S. 913, 936-937 (2005) (&ldquo;[O]ne who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other  affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.&rdquo;).<br /><a NAME="unluFN24sym" HREF="#unluFN24anc"><b>24</b></a>. http://tranche.proteomecommons.org/users/quickstart-upload.html (last visited Aug. 28, 2008).<br /><a NAME="unluFN25sym" HREF="#unluFN25anc"><b>25</b></a>. <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm">Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.</a>, 464 U.S. 417, 442 (1984).<br /><a NAME="unluFN26sym" HREF="#unluFN26anc"><b>26</b></a>. <a href="#unluFN9sym">Opderbeck, <i>supra</i> note 9</a>, at 218. (&ldquo;[A]n open source biotechnology model likely will do little to facilitate long term, significant innovation.&rdquo;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2008/08/29/data-sharing-and-the-digital-science-commons/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who Owns #1?: Do College Football Rankings Receive Copyright Protection as Databases?</title>
		<link>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2007/11/05/who-owns-1-do-college-football-rankings-receive-copyright-protection-as-databases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2007/11/05/who-owns-1-do-college-football-rankings-receive-copyright-protection-as-databases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[databases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mttlrblog.org/?p=8</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by: John Geis, Associate Editor, MTTLR
It’s that time of year again: crisp Saturday afternoons, college football, and the release of the Bowl Championship Series (&#8220;BCS&#8221;)1 standings.  The BCS standings determine who plays for the NCAA Football Division I national championship and are reprinted in newspapers across the country.  In 2004, the Associate Press [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:jcgeis@umich.edu">John Geis</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span></p>
<div align="justify">It’s that time of year again: crisp Saturday afternoons, college football, and the release of the Bowl Championship Series (&#8220;BCS&#8221;)<a name="geislink1"></a><a href="#geisfn1"><sup><b>1</b></sup></a> standings.  The BCS standings determine who plays for the NCAA Football Division I national championship and are reprinted in newspapers across the country.  In 2004, the Associate Press (“AP”) sent a cease and desist letter to the BCS demanding that the BCS refrain from using the AP Poll in its calculations.<a name="geislink2"></a><a href="#geisfn2"><sup><b>2</b></sup></a>  In its letter, the AP claimed that its poll had copyright protection.  While notice is no longer necessary to secure copyright, and, either way, the copyright on the newspaper is sufficient notice for its separate contributions,<a name="geislink3"></a><a href="#geisfn3"><sup><b>3</b></sup></a> it remains to be seen whether the rankings themselves are protected by copyright.</p>
<p>College football polls, like telephone books and price lists, should be treated as databases under copyright law.  U.S. and international copyright law<a name="geislink4"></a><a href="#geisfn4"><sup><b>4</b></sup></a> protect the databases as compilations of data, thereby only protecting the database to the extent of its selection and arrangement of data.  The Supreme Court ruled that a residential telephone book did not receive copyright protection because the alphabetical listing of names and phone numbers lacked originality, &#8220;the sin qua non of copyright.&#8221;<a name="geislink5"></a><a href="#geisfn5"><sup><b>5</b></sup></a>  However, the Second and Ninth Circuits have granted copyright protection to the information contained in the Red Book of used car values and Greysheet of coin prices because they were not &#8220;pre-existing facts that had merely been discovered…these predictions were based not only on a multitude of data sources, but also on professional judgment and expertise.&#8221;<a name="geislink6"></a><a href="#geisfn6"><sup><b>6</b></sup></a></p>
<p>Beginning the copyright protection analysis with polls, the AP Top 25 College Poll is &#8220;compiled from votes by 65 sportswriters and broadcasters from across the country.&#8221;<a name="geislink7"></a><a href="#geisfn7"><sup><b>7</b></sup></a>  The USA Today Top 25 Coaches’ Poll &#8220;is made up of 60 head coaches at Division I-A institutions. All are members of the American Football Coaches Association.&#8221;<a name="geislink8"></a><a href="#geisfn8"><sup><b>8</b></sup></a>  The Harris Interactive College Football PollSM is constructed of &#8220;a panel of former players, coaches, administrators and current and former media.&#8221;<a name="geislink9"></a><a href="#geisfn9"><sup><b>9</b></sup></a>  Each of these polls could make a solid argument that their polls do not discover pre-existing facts.  Instead, these polls harness the collective professional judgment and expertise of writers, coaches, players, and administrators to determine an original expression of the Top 25 college football teams.  The professional judgment of the voters is expressed in the pre-season rankings and in the adjustment of their rankings each week as teams begin to win and lose.  One may argue that the top two or three teams are often identical and the selections are limited to the 119 NCAA Division I teams.  Granted, sometimes the voters’ expressions are the same as voters in other polls, but often they are not, as exemplified by the 2003 end of season rankings in which the polls did not agree, and the AP #1, USC, was left out of the national championship game.<a name="geislink10"></a><a href="#geisfn10"><sup><b>10</b></sup></a></p>
<p>On the other side of the coin toss, however, are the computer rankings.<a name="geislink11"></a><a href="#geisfn11"><sup><b>11</b></sup></a>  Computer rankings use a computer model to determine the team rankings based on inputs such as wins, losses, margins of victory, and opponents’ wins and losses.  While the rankings are &#8220;based . . . only on a multitude of data sources,&#8221;<a name="geislink12"></a><a href="#geisfn12"><sup><b>12</b></sup></a> the selection and interrelation of inputs may show some originality and professional judgment.  Obviously, rankings solely based on wins and losses would not show the requisite originality.<a name="geislink13"></a><a href="#geisfn13"><sup><b>13</b></sup></a>  Yet, one could argue that the computer rankings are like the Red Book values in Maclean.  However, one must be careful not to blur the distinction between copyright protection for the underlying computer program and protection for the output rankings.  That is, does the originality in selecting process inputs transmute the input facts into an original output?  Or, are the output rankings sufficiently merged with the underlying computer algorithms to be barred by §102(b)?<a name="geislink14"></a><a href="#geisfn14"><sup><b>14</b></sup></a> In the end, computer rankings take in a large number of facts and formulaically translate those facts into other facts, which are then sorted.  Facts are not original and, thus, are not copyrightable.</p>
<p>Lastly, there are the BCS standings.  According to the BCS website, the methodology of the standings &#8220;include three components: USA Today Coaches Poll, Harris Interactive College Football Poll and an average of six computer rankings. Each component will count one-third toward a team&#8217;s overall BCS score.  All three components shall be added together and averaged for a team&#8217;s ranking in the BCS Standings. The team with the highest average shall rank first in the BCS Standings.&#8221;<a name="geislink15"></a><a href="#geisfn15"><sup><b>15</b></sup></a>  The BCS would likely argue that the selection of polls and rankings used and that the commission of Harris Interactive to replace the AP Poll in 2005 are sufficiently original to receive protection.  However, like computer rankings, the BCS standings are formulaic transformation of pre-existing facts.<a name="geislink16"></a><a href="#geisfn16"><sup><b>16</b></sup></a>  This in and of itself does not preclude copyright protection, but simple averaging of other rankings is so mechanical and routine as not to require any creativity whatsoever.</p>
<p>In reality, the BCS and other &#8220;name brand&#8221; rankings receive much of their protection under Lanham Act and state trademark laws.   After all, no-one really cares how I rank the Top 25.  But as rankings have become big business in the BCS<a name="geislink17"></a><a href="#geisfn17"><sup><b>17</b></sup></a> and in society in general,<a name="geislink18"></a><a href="#geisfn18"><sup><b>18</b></sup></a> determining how much copyright protection rankings may receive will need to be answered.  The polls should receive copyright protection for their rankings because they fold in the professional judgment and expertise of the voters.  Computer rankings and the BCS, however, simply manipulate pre-existing facts into more unprotectable facts.</div>
<hr /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><a name="geisfn1"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink1">1</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl Championship Series, <a href="http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfootball/">http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfootball/</a> (last visited Nov. 5, 2007).<br /><a name="geisfn2"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink2">2</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp; Letter from George Galt, Associated Press, to Kevin Weiberg, Bowl Championship Series Coordinator (Dec. 21, 2004), <i>available at</i> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2004-12-21-bcs-ap-letter_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2004-12-21-bcs-ap-letter_x.htm</a>.<br /><a name="geisfn3"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink3">3</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;17 U.S.C. § 101(e) (2007).  Section 404 states that &#8220;a single notice applicable to the collective work as a whole is sufficient to [defeat defendant’s claims of innocent infringement], as applicable with respect to the separate contributions it contains.&#8221;  17 U.S.C. § 404 (2007).  The definition for &#8220;collective work&#8221; includes a &#8220;periodical issue.&#8221; 17 U.S.C. § 101 (2007).<br /><a name="geisfn4"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink4">4</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;&#8221;A &#8216;compilation&#8217; is a work formed by the collection and assembling of…data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.&#8221;  17 U.S.C. § 101 (2007).  &#8220;Compilations of data . . . which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such.&#8221; Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Jan. 1, 1996, Article 10(2) (1996).  <i>Contra</i> Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996, Article 7, Official Journal L 077, 20-28, Mar. 27, 1996, <i>available at</i> <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0009:EN:HTML">http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0009:EN:HTML</a> (&#8220;Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database.&#8221;)<br /><a name="geisfn5"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink5">5</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991).<br /><a name="geisfn6"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink6">6</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1261 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting CCC Information Services, Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports, Inc., 44 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1994, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 (1995)).<br /><a name="geisfn7"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink7">7</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;Associated Press, <i>AP College Poll Voters</i>, <a href="http://onlinenews.ap.org/collegefootball_rankings/voters">http://onlinenews.ap.org/collegefootball_rankings/voters</a> (last visited Nov. 5, 2007).<br /><a name="geisfn8"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink8">8</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;USA Today, <i>Top 25 Coaches&#8217; Poll</i>, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/usatpoll.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/usatpoll.htm</a> (last visited Nov. 5, 2007).<br /><a name="geisfn9"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink9">9</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;HarrisInteractive, <i>Bowl Championship Series</i>, <a href="http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/bcspoll.asp">http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/bcspoll.asp</a> (last visited Nov. 5, 2007).<br /><a name="geisfn10"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink10">10</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp; Wikipedia, <i>BCS National Championship Game</i>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_National_Championship_Game">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_National_Championship_Game</a> (last visited Nov. 5, 2007).<br /><a name="geisfn11"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink11">11</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>E.g.</i>, Jeff Sagarin, <i>NCAA Football Ratings</i>, USA Today, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt07.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt07.htm</a> (last visited Nov. 5, 2007).<br /><a name="geisfn12"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink12">12</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;CDN Inc. v. Kapes, <i>supra</i> note 6.<br /><a name="geisfn13"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink13">13</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;&#8221;[T]he selection and arrangement of facts cannot be so mechanical or routine as to require no creativity whatsoever.&#8221;  Feist, <i>supra</i> note 5, at 362.<br /><a name="geisfn14"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink14">14</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;&#8221;In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.&#8221; 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).<br /><a name="geisfn15"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink15">15</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl Championship Series, <i>BCS Standings</i>, <a href="http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/standings">http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/standings</a> (last visited Nov. 5, 2007).<br /><a name="geisfn16"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink16">16</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp; <i>See</i>, ESPN, <i>BCS Standings</i>, <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings">http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings</a> (last visited Nov. 5, 2007).<br /><a name="geisfn17"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink17">17</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;&#8221;The share to each conference with an annual automatic berth in the BCS (ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC) is approximately $17 million. If a second team from one of those conferences qualifies to play in one of the games, that conference will receive an additional $4.5 million.&#8221; Bowl Championship Series, <i>2007-2008 Media Guide</i>, <a href="http://www.bcsfootball.org/id/7212064_37_1.pdf">http://www.bcsfootball.org/id/7212064_37_1.pdf</a>.<br /><a name="geisfn18"></a><sup><b><a href="#geislink18">18</a></b></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp; <i>E.g.</i>, Fortune 500, Am Law 100, U.S. News &#038; World Reports: America’s Best Colleges and America’s Best Graduate Schools.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2007/11/05/who-owns-1-do-college-football-rankings-receive-copyright-protection-as-databases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
