[Puneet Kishor]

Very eloquently, clearly and forcefully put, Willi.
One should not sign away one’s rights via contracts.
—
Puneet Kishor
Just Another Creative Commoner
http://punkish.org/About

Discussion

[ENRIQUE ALONSO GARCIA]

You are right Puneet, Should not. But should not does not mean that people do not actually sell them (and they are backed by courts when they do it)
Take care
________________________________
De: punk.kish=***@***.***-groups.org [punk.kish=***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de punkish [***@***.***]
Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de abril de 2016 1:20
Para: ***@***.***-groups.org
Asunto: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] RE: [rda-legalinterop-ig] RE: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Fwd: data…
Very eloquently, clearly and forcefully put, Willi.
One should not sign away one’s rights via contracts.
—
Puneet Kishor
Just Another Creative Commoner
http://punkish.org/About
On Apr 12, 2016, at 5:43 PM, Willi Egloff wrote:
Dear Enrique
Both your conclusions are right. But your arguments concern a completely different question. I was talking about “data” as “inmaterial good”. You are talking about “data” as object of contracts. In my understanding, this are two completely different issues.
You are right: We can sell data, we can buy data, we can keep data secret, we can publish data. Of course, we can. Nothing of it is illegal. But does it mean that data is an inmaterial good? Not at all. We can buy reputation, we can buy goodwill, we can buy feelings, we can even buy love. Nothing of that is illegal. Does it mean that goodwill, feelings, love are inmaterial goods? Not at all.
Please read my statement: “Inmaterial goods” are non-physically existing objects that have been qualified as goods by law. Copyrightable works are such goods, data are not. That’s all. It does not say in any form that buying or selling data is illegal. It is not. But this does not change the fact that there is no legislation that qualifies data as goods.
The difference I’m talking about is the difference between absolute rights and relative rights. I can assert absolute rights against everybody. But I can assert relative rights only in the relation to a contractual party or on some other obligational ground. I can sue anybody who has used my copyrightable work, because it is an inmaterial good and I have an absolute right in it. I cannot sue somebody who has used “my data”, if it is not on the basis of a contract that he or she has violated, because “data” is not an inmaterial good and I have no absolute right in it. That was the only point I wanted to remind.
In our group, we are dealing with legal interoperability. We are looking for solutions that allow the access and reuse of data in situations where there is no contract. Between two or more parties that are linked by contract, you do not need legal interoperability. In these cases, it is always the contract that says what is allowed and what is not. The only exception are overriding legal rules.
That’s exactly why we recommend to avoid contracts that restrict access and reuse of data. You can conclude such contracts, but it hampers legal interoperability. That’s why you should not do it, if you can avoid it. I thought that this was one of the red lines in our guidelines. Was I wrong?
Best regards,
Willi
Am 12.04.2016 um 08:34 schrieb enriquealonso:
Afer Willi´s statements…
I still maintain that our conclusion/consensus was that:
A.- We should not use ownership in the context of our guidelines, but
B.- We should not assert either that data is by essence a fact that cannot be IPRed.
I agree with you Willi, that is the law but I have been convinced that that “should” be the law. De facto reality runs counter to it in Business Data law.
If a company A sells to company B its collected data and includes a clause that obliges B not to allow any third party C to access it and to acknowledge that it (B) has been authorized only to use A´s data for X use or under Y conditions “because A is the owner and has its IPRâ€

[Author]

Replies