[*] Special thanks to Professor Mary LaFrance for guidance, support, and insight, and my wife, Twyla, for her patience as I completed this Comment. This Comment is dedicated to my parents, the late Terry P. Sanks and Juanita M. Sanks, who taught me to believe in myself and to keep striving forward. Return to text.

[1] Letter from James Madison to W. T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), in 9 THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 103 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1910). Return to text.

[2] See Ralph C. Losey, Practical and Legal Protection of Computer Databases (visited Apr. 14, 1998) . Even with the advent of electronic databases, some databases still primarily exist on paper. Examples of paper-based databases still used today include phone books, reference tables, and television directories. See id. Return to text.

[3] In 1964, IBM introduced the standard institutional mainframe computer. See History of Computers and The Internet (visited May 20, 1998) line/links/comphist.htm> [hereinafter History Site]. Return to text.

[4] Electronic databases are collections of information stored so that they can be selectively searched and the desired information retrieved using a computer. See Losey, supra note 2. Return to text.

[5] See History Site, supra note 3; see also ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 831 (E.D. Pa. 1996), aff'd, 117 S. Ct. 2329 (1997). Return to text.

[6] See 142 CONG. REC. E890-04 (daily ed. May 23, 1996) (statement of Rep. Moorhead). Return to text.

[7] The Internet is a not a single physical entity. It is actually a worldwide network of interconnected small computer networks. For a complete explanation of the Internet, see ACLU, 929 F. Supp. at 831-39. The Internet was developed from the Department of Defense's Advanced Research Project Association Network (ARPANET). See id. ARPANET evolved to become known as the DARPA Internet and finally just Internet, when it expanded for civilian use. See id.; see also Losey, supra note 2. Return to text.

[8] See Sportline USA (visited Apr. 14, 1998) . Return to text.

[9] See Alzheimers.com (visited Apr. 14, 1998) . Return to text.

[10] See J. H. Reichman & Pamela Samuelson, Intellectual Property Rights In Data?, 50 VAND. L. REV. 51, 64 (1997). Return to text.

[11] See id. Return to text.

[12] See, e.g., Playboy Enter., Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (finding that the unauthorized use of Playboy's photographs was a copyright infringement). Return to text.

[13] "Database owner" refers to the person, natural or legal, who has legal title to a database. A database owner can be the original compiler of a database or a subsequent owner. Even though the legislation that is the subject of this Comment uses different terms for a database owner, the terms used are similar to the general definition of "database owner." See infra Parts II.B.1, III.B, IV. Examples of database owners include West Publishing Co., LEXIS-NEXIS, and the Information Industry Association. The Information Industry Association is comprised of such companies as Thomas Business Informations, McGraw-Hill Companies, NASDAQ Stock Market, GTE Directories Corp., and the Dow Jones Co. See IIA's Board of Directors (visited Jan. 2, 1997) presbrd/iiaboard.htm>. Throughout the remainder of this Comment, the term "database owners" is used to include database owners, database developers, and any other entity supporting the view that a sui generis right in databases is needed. Return to text.

[14] See Barry D. Weiss, Barbed Wires and Branding in Cyberspace: The Future of Copyright Protection, in UNDERSTANDING BASIC COPYRIGHT LAW 1996 397, 399 (PLI Pats., Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Prop. Handbook Series No. 450, 1996). Return to text.

[15] See U.S. COPYRIGHT OFF., REPORT ON LEGAL PROTECTION FOR DATABASES 67 (1997), available at [hereinafter U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT]; see also U.S. Industry Needs Legislation to Protect Investment in Databases (visited Dec. 12, 1996) .< R> See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 67. Return to text.

[17] See id.; see also 142 CONG. REC. E890-04 (daily ed. May 23, 1996) (statement of Rep. Moorhead). Return to text.

[18] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 67. Return to text.

[19] Opponents include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Library of Congress, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. See Proposals to Regulate the Public's Rights to Use Information Stored in "Databases" (visited Apr. 14, 1998) database/database.html>. Return to text.

[20] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 68. Return to text.

[21] See id. Return to text.

[22] See infra Part III.B. Return to text.

[23] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 68. Such negative consequences could include increased limitations or costs to access data. See id. at 68-69. Return to text.

[24] See id. at 69. Return to text.

[25] See Council Directive No. 96/9/EC, O.J. L 77/20 (1996) [hereinafter Directive]. Return to text.

[26] This is a non-copyright form of legal protection intended to supplement traditional copyright laws. See 142 CONG. REC. E890-04 (daily ed. May 23, 1996) (statement of Rep. Moorhead). Return to text.

[27] "Sui generis" means "of its own kind or class." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1434 (6th ed. 1990). Return to text.

[28] See Directive, supra note 25, art. 11. Return to text.

[29] See H.R. 3531, 104th Cong. (1996). Return to text.

[30] See Treaties: WIPO Delegates Agree on Two Treaties, 53 P.T.C.J. 145, 146 (1997). Return to text.

[31] See id.; see also Julius J. Marke, Database Protection Acts and the 105th Congress, N.Y.L.J. , Mar. 18, 1997, available at . For further discussions on recent developments, see infra Part III.B. Return to text.

[32] The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is a specialized United Nations coordinating body for international patents, trademarks, and copyrights. See Copyright Talks Try to Take Byte out of Piracy, ST. LOUIS POST- DISPATCH, Dec. 3, 1996, at A1. Return to text.

[33] See id. The WIPO Conference was held in Geneva, Switzerland. See id. Return to text.

[34] See Basic Proposal for the Substantive Provisions of the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Databases to be Considered by the Diplomatic Conference, CRNR/DC/6, Aug. 30, 1996, available at [hereinafter WIPO Proposal]. Return to text.

[35] Three separate treaties were scheduled for negotiations. In addition to the treaty increasing copyright-like protection to databases, a second treaty proposes updates to the laws protecting literary and artistic work. The third treaty focuses on increasing protection of music and recordings. See An Eye on Geneva, WASH. POST, Dec. 7, 1996, at A24. The two other treaties were accepted. See Treaties: WIPO Delegates Agree on Two Treaties, supra note 30. Return to text.

[36] See Treaties: WIPO Delegates Agree on Two Treaties, supra note 30; see also Lisa H. Greene & Steven J. Rizzi, Database Protection Developments: Proposals Stall in the United States and WIPO, 9 No. 1 J. PROPRIETARY RTS. 2, 6 (1997) (quoting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Bruce Lehman, who noted that database protection "dropped out" of the deliberations following objections "from almost all countries of the world"). Return to text.

[37] See WIPO, Preparatory Work on a Treaty Concerning Intellectual Property in Databases (visited Apr. 14, 1998) ab30_3.htm>. Return to text.

[38] Id. Return to text.

[39] See WIPO, Information Meeting on Intellectual Property in Databases § I (visited Apr. 14, 1998) . Return to text.

[40] See id. The questions and aspects to consider are:

the need for such a system of protection;
definitions of necessary concepts, such as 'database'; the protected subject matter; the rights that should be granted; the scope of protection; determination of the beneficiary or holder of the rights; duration of the rights; exceptions in favor of, e.g., scientific and educational activities; principles of operation, such as national treatment or reciprocity; and means of enforcement and means for acquiring the proof of infringement. Id. § IV. Return to text.

[41] See id. The analysis is scheduled for release by September 1998. Return to text.

[42] See Paul H. Vishny et al., European Union Law: An Introduction, SB04 ALI-ABA 1 (1996). Return to text.

[43] Other forms of secondary European legislation include regulations, decisions, recommendations, and opinions. See Fabio Marino, Database Protection in the European Union (visited Apr. 14, 1998) . These forms of legislation are considered Secondary European legislation because their authority is established in the Primary European legislation. The Primary European legislation consists of the three treaties that established the EU. The first treaty was the 1957 Treaty of Rome. See Vishny, supra note 42, at 3. The goal of the Treaty of Rome was to create an integrated free market that allowed the free movement of goods, individuals, and capital. However, the goals were not fully reached. Subsequently, the Treaty of Rome was amended twice. The first amendment occurred with the signing of the second treaty, the Single European Act of 1987. See Single European Act, 1987 O.J. (L 169) 1. This treaty mandated the elimination of physical, technical, and fiscal barriers by 1992. The second amendment occurred with the signing of the third treaty, the Treaty on European Union, in 1992. See Treaty on European Union, Feb. 7, 1992, 1992 O.J. (C 224) 1, 1 C.M.L.R. 719 (1992). In addition to referencing the member states as the European Union, this treaty established the four governmental institutions, a European system of central banks, and a staged achievement of economic and monetary union. See id. Return to text.

[44] See Marino, supra note 43, at 2. Return to text.

[45] See generally Vishny, supra note 42; Marino, supra note 43. Return to text.

[46] See generally Vishny, supra note 42. Return to text.

[47] See, e.g., Directive on the Legal Protection of Software Programs, 91/5 O.J. (L. 122) [hereinafter Software Protection]. Return to text.

[48] See Commission Proposal for a Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Databases, 1992 O.J. (C 156) 4. Return to text.

[49] See id. art. 1. Return to text.

[50] See Directive, supra note 25, art. 16. Return to text.

[51] Id. art. 1. The Directive excludes from the definition of "database" computer programs used in making or operating databases. See id. Such programs are already protected by the Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs. See Software Protection, supra note 47. Return to text.

[52] The Cable News Network (CNN) televises sports scores at the bottom of the television screen during its transmitted news casts. CNN designated this the "sports ticker." Return to text.

[53] See Directive, supra note 25, Introduction. Return to text.

[54] Id. art. 7. Return to text.

[55] See infra notes 121, 140 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[56] Directive, supra note 25, art. 8, § 1. Return to text.

[57] Id. art. 9. Return to text.

[58] See id. Return to text.

[59] Each member state is responsible for promulgating laws under the directive. See supra Part II.A. Return to text.

[60] See Directive, supra note 25, art. 10. Return to text.

[61] See id. § 2. Return to text.

[62] A substantial change to restart the 15 years is "the accumulation of successive additions, deletions or alterations" in respect to the contents of a database, resulting in the substantial modification of all or part of the database. Id. § 3. Return to text.

[63] See id. Return to text.

[64] See Greene & Rizzi, supra note 36, at 3. Commissioner Lehman acknowledged that once the Directive becomes law in 1998, American databases lack protection in Europe. See id. at 7. Return to text.

[65] See Directive, supra note 25, art. 11, § 2. Return to text.

[66] See id. § 1. Return to text.

[67] See supra note 24 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[68] See Directive, supra note 25, art. 5. Return to text.

[69] 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Return to text.

[70] See id. at 342. Return to text.

[71] See id. at 342-43. Return to text.

[72] See id. at 343. Return to text.

[73] See id. at 344, 364. Return to text.

[74] The classic formulation of this doctrine is articulated in Jeweler's Circular Publishing Co. v. Keystone Publishing Co., 281 F. 83, 88 (2d Cir. 1922), which concluded that a right to copyright protection of a book where labor was expended does not depend on whether the materials that make up the book consist of matters that "show literary skill or originality, either in thought or in language, or anything more than industrious collection." Return to text.

[75] See Feist, 499 U.S. at 346. The Court concluded that originality required two components, "independent creation plus a modicum of creativity." Id. Return to text.

[76] See id. at 347, 350 ("Facts, whether alone or as part of a compilation, are not original and therefore may not be copyrighted."). Return to text.

[77] See id. at 350. Return to text.

[78] See id. at 345 ("[T]he requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be." (citation omitted)). Return to text.

[79] MELVILLE B. NIMMER & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 3.04(B)(2) (1996). Return to text.

[80] 999 F.2d 1436 (11th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Return to text.

[81] See id. Return to text.

[82] See id. at 1438. Return to text.

[83] See id. Return to text.

[84] See id. Return to text.

[85] Id. at 1439. Return to text.

[86] Id. at 1442. Return to text.

[87] See id. at 1441 (stating that the acts of selecting locations to list are not acts of authorship). Return to text.

[88] See id. at 1438. Return to text.

[89] 115 F.3d 1509 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 397 (1997). Return to text.

[90] See id. at 1511. Return to text.

[91] See id. at 1512. The type of information contained included cable system companies' names, addresses, telephone numbers, number of subscribers, channels offered, prices of services, and types of equipment used. See id. Return to text.

[92] See id. Return to text.

[93] See id. at 1513. Return to text.

[94] See id. at 1514. Return to text.

[95] See id. Return to text.

[96] See Warren Publ'g, Inc. v. Microdos Data Corp., 52 F.3d 950, 951 (11th Cir.), vacated en banc, 67 F.3d 276 (11th Cir. 1995). Return to text.

[97] See id. at 954. Return to text.

[98] Id. Return to text.

[99] Warren, 115 F.3d at 1520-21. Return to text.

[100] See id. Return to text.

[101] See infra note 75 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[102] 44 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1994). Return to text.

[103] See id. at 63. Return to text.

[104] See id. at 64. Return to text.

[105] See id. Return to text.

[106] See id. Return to text.

[107] The merger doctrine does not allow an idea which is expressed to receive protection. See id. at 71. Return to text.

[108] See id. at 73. Return to text.

[109] See id. Return to text.

[110] See id. Return to text.

[111] Id. at 71. Return to text.

[112] Repub., Cal. Return to text.

[113] See H.R. 3531, 104th Cong. (1996). Return to text.

[114] See id. Return to text.

[115] See Greene & Rizzi, supra note 36, at 3, 5. Return to text.

[116] Id. (quoting H.R. 3531, 104th Cong. § 3(a) (1996). Return to text.

[117] H.R. 3531, 104th Cong. § 2 (1996). Return to text.

[118] See supra note 52 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[119] See supra notes 69-78 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[120] H.R. 3531, 104th Cong. § 4(1) (1996). Return to text.

[121] Id. § 2. Return to text.

[122] Id. Return to text.

[123] Id. Return to text.

[124] See id. § 3. The use in commerce may be either public or commercial. See id. Return to text.

[125] See id. Return to text.

[126] See supra notes 57-59 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[127] See H.R. 3531, 104th Cong. § 6 (1996). Return to text.

[128] See id. Return to text.

[129] See id. § 10. Return to text.

[130] See supra notes 117-19 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[131] Repub., Utah. Return to text.

[132] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 2. The report includes an overview of past and present domestic and international laws for database protection, descriptions of the existing industry database protection methods and Copyright Office registration practices for databases, and issues raised during the series of meetings. See id. Return to text.

[133] See id. Return to text.

[134] See Marke, supra note 31. Return to text.

[135] See WIPO Proposal, supra note 34, at 2-3. Return to text.

[136] See supra Parts II.B., III.B. Return to text.

[137] WIPO Proposal, supra note 34, art. 1(1). Return to text.

[138] Id. art. 2(i). Return to text.

[139] Id. art. 2.02. Return to text.

[140] Id. art. 3(1). Return to text.

[141] Id. art. 2(ii). Return to text.

[142] Id. art. 2(v). Return to text.

[143] See supra notes 116-23 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[144] See WIPO Proposal, supra note 34, art. 8. Return to text.

[145] See id. art. 8.01. Return to text.

[146] Id. art. 8(3).

Any substantial change to the database, evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively, including any substantial change resulting from the accumulation of successive additions, deletions, verification, modifications in organization or presentation, or other alterations, which constitute a new substantial investment, shall qualify the database resulting from such investment for its own term of protection.
Id. Return to text.

[147] See id. art. 10.

Contracting Parties shall make unlawful the importation, manufacture or distribution of protection-defeating devices, or the offer or performance of any service having the same effect, by any person knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that the device or service will be used for, or in the course of, the exercise of rights provided under this Treaty that is not authorized by the rightholder or the law.
Id. art. 10(1). Return to text.

[148] See supra notes 129-30 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[149] See generally Reichman & Samuelson, supra note 10. Return to text.

[150] See supra note 24 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[151] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 19. Return to text.

[152] See id. at 22. Return to text.

[153] See, e.g., WEST GROUP, DISCOVERING WESTLAW: THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE (7th ed. 1997). Its licensing agreement states in part: "No part of a WESTLAW transmission may be copied, downloaded, stored in a retrieval system, further transmitted or otherwise reproduced, stored, disseminated, transferred or used, in any form or by any means, except as permitted in the WESTLAW Subscriber Agreement or with West's prior written agreement." Id. Return to text.

[154] See, e.g., ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). Return to text.

[155] 86 F.3d 1447 (1996). Return to text.

[156] See id. The listing included the names, addresses, telephone numbers, zip codes and even industry codes. They were obtained from over 3000 telephone directories. See id. Return to text.

[157] A "shrinkwrap license" is an agreement that is commonly placed inside retail boxes containing CD-ROM discs. These boxes are wrapped in plastic or cellophane "shrinkwrap." See id. at 1449. Return to text.

[158] See id. Return to text.

[159] See id. at 1450. Return to text.

[160] See id. Return to text.

[161] See id. at 1455. But see Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 269 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that a shrinkwrap license for computer diskettes that contained a software program which prohibited unauthorized duplication of programs placed on them was an unenforceable "contract of adhesion"). Return to text.

[162] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 25. Return to text.

[163] See, e.g., An Explanation of Changes for westlaw.com (visited Apr. 6, 1998) . WESTLAW has over 30 plans that vary depending on the type and frequency of use that is anticipated. See id. Return to text.

[164] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 25 (noting that "some science agencies have found price differentiation impractical, since it can be more expensive for them to keep track of who is entitled to which price"). Return to text.

[165] See id. at 26. Database owners believe that encryption is at least a year away. See id. Return to text.

[166] See id. Return to text.

[167] See id. at 27. Return to text.

[168] See id. Also increasing cost is the fact that dissemination of databases over the Internet will involve not only encryption, but also a licensing statement that the user must agree to prior to access. See id. at 26. Return to text.

[169] See Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publ'g Co., No. 94 Civ. 0589, 1997 WL 266972 *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 1997). Return to text.

[170] But see id. Even though West invested time and money to supplement court opinions by adding, for example, parallel citations and attorney information, West still lost the case. See id. Return to text.

[171] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 67. Return to text.

[172] See id. at 22. Return to text.

[173] See id. Return to text.

[174] 1997 WL 266972 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 1997). Return to text.

[175] See id. at *4. Return to text.

[176] See id. at *2. Return to text.

[177] See id. at *3- *4. Return to text.

[178] See id. at *3. Return to text.

[179] See id. Return to text.

[180] See id. at *4. Return to text.

[181] Id. Return to text.

[182] See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. Return to text.

[183] See id. amend. I. Return to text.

[184] Id. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. Return to text.

[185] See id. ("by securing for [a] limited time"). Return to text.

[186] See supra notes 127-28, 143-45 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[187] See NIMMER & NIMMER, supra note 79, § 1.05[A][1]. Congress increased copyright protection from 56 years after publication to the life of the author plus 50 years. See id. Return to text.

[188] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 107. Return to text.

[189] See id. After the Supreme Court's ruling in The Trademark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879), which held that trademark protection laws were not governed by the Copyright Clause because trademarks have different "essential characteristics" from inventions and writings and are the result of use instead of creation, trademark laws have been passed under the Commerce Clause and have gone unchallenged. See id. at 107-08. But see Railway Lab. Exec. Ass'n v. Gibbons, 455 U.S. 457, 468-69 (1982) (holding that Congress could not legislate under the Commerce Clause when the law violated the Article I Bankruptcy Clause). This case is distinguishable from The Trademark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879). See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT supra note 15, at 108. Railway Labor may be the catalyst to strike down any far-reaching database protection law that Congress enacts. For a full discussion, see id. at 106-09. Return to text.

[190] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 108. Trademark law is grounded in the Commerce Clause whereas copyright law is based on the Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. The original federal trademark laws were based on the Patent and Copyright Clause, but the Court declared them unconstitutional. See TradeMark Cases, 100 U.S. at 99. Following the Court's reasoning, all future trademark laws were based on the Commerce Clause. See id. at 97-99. A trademark can be granted for such things as a brand name, logo, shape, sound, smell, color, or any other non-functional but distinctive aspect of a product which helps to promote or distinguish it in the flow of commerce. See Trademarks and Trademark Registration FAQs (visited Oct. 2, 1997) com/tmrkfaq.htm>. In contrast, copyright laws can protect the original works of expression, but not the unique name, title, shape, color, or any other trademark protected aspect of an item. See id. Return to text.

[191] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 109-10 ("If individual facts remain free to be used for purposes of expression, whether political, artistic or other, there may be little need from a First Amendment perspective to copy a substantial portion of an entire database."). Return to text.

[192] See id. at 88. Return to text.

[193] See id. at 90. Return to text.

[194] See supra note 24 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[195] See supra notes 14-16 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[196] According to computer experts, new computer technology is outdated approximately every one or two years. See Frank Chiang, Intel Everywhere (visited Apr. 7, 1998) . Return to text.

[197] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 90. Return to text.

[198] See id. at 91-95. Return to text.

[199] 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997). Return to text.

[200] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 90. Return to text.

[201] See NBA, 105 F.3d at 843. Return to text.

[202] See id. at 844. Return to text.

[203] See id. at 853-54. Return to text.

[204] See id. at 853. Return to text.

[205] Id. at 845. Return to text.

[206] See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 83-84. Return to text.

[207] On October 9, 1997, the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, House Bill 2652 was introduced into Congress. See H.R. 2652, 105th Cong. (1997). Based upon a misappropriations concept, this bill makes individuals liable for taking one person's collection of gathered information and using it to compete with the original collector in a commercial market. See id. § 1201.

Any person who extracts, or uses in commerce, all or a substantial part of a collection of information gathered, organized, or maintained by another person through the investment of substantial monetary or other resources, so as to harm that other person's actual or potential market for a product or service that incorporates that collection of information and is offered by that other person in commerce, shall be liable . . . .
Id. This bill provides an exemption for not-for-profit educational, scientific, research, or news reporting purposes. See id. § 1202. House Bill 2652 would preempt state misappropriation laws. See id. § 1205(b). Return to text.

[208] See Greene & Rizzi, supra note 36, at 7 (quoting Commissioner Lehman). Return to text.

[209] Opponents to any new legislation argue that an EU directive which does not provide foreigners national treatment may violate trade laws and obligations under multilateral intellectual property treaties. See U.S. COPYRIGHT REPORT, supra note 15, at 86-88. Return to text.

[210] See supra Part V. Return to text.