 Gweddyn nhw'n meddwl. Rydyn ni'n ddigon nhw'n meddwl i'r姢ff ddiwyddiadau'r sengfrannu yn llagol, beth mae'n cael ei ffordd yngyd ychydig iawn hwnnw. Yn nesif yn angen'u'r ddweud o'r rhan, oherwydd mae'n collidio'n meddwl i'n ddweud o'r ddweud i'ch hawdd, a byddwn i'n unrhyw angen o'r ddweud o'r tref. Diolch fan iddyn nhw'n amlwg hayd o'r cwrdd hwnnw, gyda eich meddwl gwaith i gadw yw 3 gradd ffiguradau bydd yn gynydwyr mewn gwaith. Mae'r llogh Lywbeth a Chyfloswy, rydyn chi'n gilydd yw eu pwg an gen i herbydd yn gwneud gael ysgrifennu hynny, fe oedd yn fetihau ar gyfer ysgrifennu i eich meddwl gweithio yw y cwmwylliant rhywbeth, fyddwch chi'n gydag mwyllwy i meddwl byd i'r byd yw'n teimlo i gweithio cyhoedd gyrddwt, oherwydd mae'n ffordd o'n ddweud o'r ddeunedig ar y ddweud. Rydym yn dweud o'n ddeunedig ar y Cedlin Cedlinol i'r Unedig Gweithio, ac mae'n dweud ei fod yn ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud ar yr Aelodol Cymru, fel 1988. Mae'r ddweud efallai sy'n ddweud o'r ddweudio ar yr aelodol am yr ysgolwch, a'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. O'r ddweud y bydd y mewn ei dynod o'ch hun i'w ddechrau, yn bobl ei mewn ei dynod o'r ddweud, ac yn chamwe wneud o'r ddweud nad oedd yn brydau o'r ddweud, a'r unig, fel y gallwn, a gynnal, a wnaeth ymarferafol gwaith, unrhyw fydd o'r gwneud am eich ddim yn ei ddefnyddio ymddangos cyffredinol gwahanol, ac oedd yn cydweud o'u tePeonidol. Oedai'r uwch yn blaid o'r cyfan, a rydw i'n edrych gydweithio nhw. Ersig, cwpio'r ddweud, profi hwn. Cymr yn ymddangos i ddim yn ysgolodau ac yn ysgolodau ar y ddweud. Rwy'n mynd i'n ysgolodau a'i ddechrau. Mae'r ddweud eich ddweud yn ysgolodau, ac mae'r ddweud eich ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'n ysgolodau. Rwy'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. a dweud y gallwn gweithio gael y cyfnod oherwydd y cyfnod, felly rydyn ni wedi'i ar y cwyl yn ymddi'r cwyl, ac rydyn ni'n mynd i gyd yn ei wneud ymddi'r cyfnod. Mae'n dweud o'r cyfnod, felly mae'n dweud o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod, ac rydyn ni'n dweud o'r cyfnod, rydyn ni'n dweud oherwydd y gallwch chi'n dweud oherwydd ychydig sy'n dweud oherwydd ychydig sydd Give me piece you a dazu Which might involve things which are very complicated. I don't know what the data scientists here or engineers in the room. The platform economy is something very complex for economists. So I won't be able to go deep in the analysis, and of course two rules that I want you to cover. ... Mueller er mwyn un ffordd o'r ffordd o'r rhaid, y ddech chi'n hyfer. Os ydym ni'n cyllideb, mae'n edrych i'r llwyddo jerf yn ychydig. Mae'r Ddiddl yn ymwysgoddiol iawn, ran hynny mae'n ddefnyddio y siarad ffordd a'r ddechrau... ... y cael ei safbethau hyffordd. Ond, mae'n f charging, maen nhw'n gallu hoffi'n teimlo... ... mae yna rwnt cerddach yr wych a'r cerdd... ac ein llenaf o'r brandmisoedd, o ffamilio'r ddau'r ddau. Fel ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddauエfydig, ac mae'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau yn ddau'r ddau institutions, mae oes yn cyfnod i'n ffamilio philio'r ddau a'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau deuaeth, Felly, mae'n gweithio i ymddyneb, i'r ddysgwyd, i'r ddysgwyd, ond mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio, ac mae'r teimlo, mewn i'r tîmhwuggag, ond mae'n blaen, yn ychydig i'n ddysgwyd rhai o ddysgwyd, o'r prysig, o'r cofiariaid i'r bwrdd cyllid, ac i'n ddysgwyd mwy o'r perffarniad. I think what I want to present today is the kind of complexities between the need for freedom in relation to data and information, and as well the fact that they are very strong push to make it expensive and rare. So, let's start with big data, and I'll start with some features and some facts and then move on by distinguishing different types of data. So, big data is usually qualified by the three Vs. It's different than data before because in terms of volume, the amount is very different. We have to deal with data which are very different, so variety is the second characteristics, and there is a speed as well in the world of big data, which makes it impossible for the traditional data analysis tool to deal with it because of those new complexities. When you look at recent reports, like to one produced by the House of Commons quite recently in February, I'll come back in a minute on what they mean by the dilemma of big data. But obviously it's something which is important, important for the economy in terms of jobs, in terms of GDP. You see the number there, so there is obviously an economic challenge. I think the legal discussion around big data usually focuses around personal data, but as put there, personal data is only probably a small part of big data. So, I will discuss some personal data issues, but discuss other issues. But at least it's clear it's important and in this report there is a kind of distinction of the value added that economic data or big data could bring to the UK economy sector by sector. Starting with numbers. I think there are three types of data, and probably different owners of the data which make big data. Public data of course is one important part, already mentioned personal data, and then as well to privately owned data. If you look at public data for instance, it seems according to the report that in the UK there are a lot more than 20,000 data sets which are now open data published and accessible according to the terms of some licence. Personal data, it's huge, it's huge, it's for instance every minute more than 200 million emails sent, 4 million Google search requests, and more than 2 million Facebook posts. So it's big, and I put it here on the side of personal data, but of course it appears as well to treasure of some companies usually. Concerning the data produced by the public sector where there has been a trend in favour of open data, I think in different countries and clearly in this country the governments realise that it's as important as other infrastructure. It's not to navigate to places as the open data institute says, but it helps to navigate to decisions and that makes it probably a valuable asset, big data, if of course it helps us to navigate. In order to share there is, and some of you might know much more than I do on the open government licence, which helps to access this data. I was stuck when reading the report about the effect that the release of some information about transport on London had as an effect because more than 5,000 designers registered to use the data sets made available under this open licence and it led to the creation as you can see of more than 360 apps. I don't know whether you are using some of them, but it's impressive in terms of outcome. When you read the report on the implementation of the deployment of open data it appears that there are some problems and some elements which are more complicated is the definition of the process, the policies and the standards for this open and shared data. That's where the problem is. The problem is not so much of course in the data and I think that's as well to legally see with more about the structure, the standards for data. On the other side, so personal data on by individuals, there it's clear that there is a dilemma, I think the title of this also of more report comes from that. People are concerned about the online privacy, but at the same time they are happy with the amount of information that they share. Of course those two polls which I quote there are made by a very different association and that might explain the outcome. Nevertheless, I think it's correct this ambivalence of people towards the use of their personal data, it's there and I think even if the commissions of those two polls are different it's correct. Now when we refer to private data or to data by the private sector it seems that data sharing of course is there more complicated and that there is quite a lot of friction. So behind my talk here I think one of the challenge is to find ways to encourage data sharing among those private undertakings because that has quite a positive effect on the economy. But of course it's not that easy because individuals have as well some right on part of this information. But we'll come back on to ways to restrict access to this information companies using contracts or intellectual property. Big data became clearly an intangible asset, it's even described sometimes as a new asset class and it makes it similar to what I've been studying so it's a value protected by intellectual property rights. But it's not yet on the balance sheet, it's not on the balance sheet but it seems when you look at some reports and I refer here to an interesting graphic which was published last week in the financial times about, you cannot see it probably, about the trends in global trade. It seems that since 2007 concerning the flaws of good services and finance in the world we have reached a kind of plateau and there is even a slope down recently in terms of global trade. But at the same time when you compare and I think that was interesting in this article, when you compare that with the rise of global data flows and on the left side you have the data from 2005, on the right side down you have the data from 2014, there is an increase which is staggering. Interestingly as well it seems that there is some kind of regional circulation of data and probably it's like for other aspects of trade so within Europe that's a big round there. We are exchanging information with other countries coming from Europe which probably indicates the position where we are here in other countries in Europe. Okay that was some big data, some facts. Now the platform economy and that's even bolder because nobody knows exactly whether platform is just a buzzword or whether it corresponds to a new economic reality. I was just discussing with the master before entering to move and he referred to the fact that at the BBC there was some kind of thinking about moving towards a platform. Platform seems to be at least everywhere into language in particular in the process of decision makers. I will say a word on that and then I will briefly discuss but I'm not really an economist what a multi-sided market is for economists and what that could imply especially in terms of competition law analysis. So maybe here you haven't heard about Togatha, that's not a word in common language but it is now in certain countries especially in France, especially in Paris, Togatha are probably targeted by some politicians. And part of the debate on platform of course is probably partly explained by some political issues that not only in France but that decision makers as well in Germany and I think on that issue there is a real convergence between Germany and France. At least there is a lot of doubts about the world that Togatha are preparing for us in Europe. And of course when you look at what they call the ecosystem basically it's a platform, Google is a platform with many different services and when you enter the platform usually you stick to the platform you don't move out because it's so easy to remain associated with different services like the one you see there. And know that those companies like Google are moving outside to pure web services but they are coming into other industry sectors with the connected car, with nest acquisition, that's the nest standard which is a interesting tool to get a lot of data inside the house, the classes and so on. I think that raises really some concerns not only within the economic sectors but it has reached the level of politicians clearly in France and in Germany. And that's not the case in other countries. Last May you might know that the commission came with a strategy and it's called the digital single market strategy which is a kind of program for the next years in terms of digital policy for the commission and the EU institutions. So there were a lot of discussions on that and for instance you see here someone to which the question is addressed in the context of the digital single market what should take on platform regulation. And of course here the response from this person is well it's not useful and it doesn't mean anything because in the end we are all platforms to think it is a platform so it's not only Google. Of course that's what someone from Google says so they don't like too much but probably they are right as well that we should be very careful about this new notion which comes in to debate and maybe in the future into law. In fact in France there is already a lot of consumers which contains a definition, a legal definition of a platform but we don't have to do a French law here. So yes I think indeed indeed that's maybe to sign that it's not the right word but when you look at what the commission says in its strategy it's quite positive about platforms because platforms enable consumers to find information and a lot of business to exploit e-commerce. You see here a list which is an open list of platforms, search engines among social media, app stores, price comparison websites. I think it covers probably too many realities and two different entities for inadequate regulation to be defined but that's my view. At least they came with this broad list of illustration of what a platform is. The commission thinks that there are very good things and things which are not that good with platforms. They have a multiplier effect in fostering new SMEs and I think that's the case as well with the exploitation of big data and platforms are probably the best equipped to use and exploit big data but there are others SMEs can do to say. That has a lot of benefits in terms of efficiency for the consumer choice but of course they accumulate a lot of personal data and they use algorithms. Is it new? Not sure and of course for the commission and that's probably where there might have been some political push. Some platforms have a growing market pour and the commission concludes that maybe some further analysis if not some regulation is needed beyond the application of competition law in specific cases. So I cannot go into the details of what a platform or a multi-sided platform is but they are economists including the Nobel Prize, the French Nobel Prize or Tirol. We've been working on multi-sided platforms which are probably different than other markets because you have different sides in the case of a platform. You have users and advertisers and you have a lot of effects, a lot of networked effects. I mean this is the kind of functioning summarized of those which are offering free services where you have two sides. The users and the advertisers and you have free service and another part is a pet part of the market. In case you have a multi-sided market usually there are those external effects like a cross-side effect that means that a member of one group values more the interaction when the participation of another group increases and that's clearly the fact for advertisers if the number of users to which they can sell advertising grows. So that's a positive cross-side. There might be as well external effect within one side of the multi-sided market. That's quite obvious that the value for a member of one group increases if the number of people participating to that side increases. But that is positive in terms of participation to a multi-sided market like a social network for the users, maybe not on the other side for the advertisers of course. So you might have positive or negative external effects within one side or cross-side and those different effects makes the economic analysis probably more complicated in terms for instance of assessing the dominance because of the different effects. But at least those platforms tend to be very positive because they help us to do things that we would never be able to do through bilateral relationship because they would use the transaction costs. Of course there are many types of multi-side platforms and here you have some examples. I don't go into details but it should show that for economists this notion makes sense and can apply to different types of economy. It could even cover matchmakers not only to find a job on the market but as well to find a partner and most media of course, that's probably the case of the BBC, most media have two sides because they have two users and the other side. All the actors of the sharing economy are probably working on a multi-sided market as well. So all the debate that is very fashionable to speak about sharing economy, I saw that there are now theories at least in America's articles on the law platform as well but it's more focused on the sharing economy. So there are so many different types of platform, that's not interesting to go more into details but when you look at this slide it's interesting. Something interesting is happening in the economy of course, I mean it's itself explanatory so I don't have to go into details. What is happening? What is this interesting maybe development in the economy? Well you become big because you just have to data and you are in between the two sides of the market. So data becomes very important in this kind of digital platform economy. I was looking at the way the UK government responded to the EU public consultation on digital platforms because after the DSM strategy was released last year the commission came in open with consultation. And at the same time the House of Lords conducted as well a consultation about digital platforms. And when you look at the policy paper of the UK government and look at the headings, well what's the common denominator? The whole discussion is about data. It's all about data and I think we are probably at a moment where there is more to do to understand how the rules on data should function and should be designed. Now that's a more legal part of my talk. What about the rules? I will deal with competition law a little bit then focus more on intellectual property because probably a lot of people are interested in intellectual property law here today. And very little about data protection because time is passing and then I will conclude on the need maybe to adapt to rules. Competition law first. And the role of data in competition law I will come back on all cases. It's always nice to come back on sometimes very old cases like the McGill case that we have been following. I did it in the mid 19th. It's a UK case but there have been other cases which I will just summarize because they involve competition law, IP and the access to data. And I will then end up with some comments on new developments. McGill you might remember some of you but as I think it makes audience I come back on the facts. Sorry for those who know everything about this case. It's about tissue of a secondary market for weekly TV magazines because at that time it seems that each broadcaster including BBC had its own weekly magazine and they refused to give licences to McGill who wanted to publish a multi-channel guide. At that time they were only weekly guides per channel. Of course the information was released today in newspapers. That was not an issue but they wanted to keep the secondary market for weekly magazine. McGill in this case complains before the DG competition, the commission which issued a decision back in 1988. At the same time there are discussions before the courts and the Irish court finds that copyrights exist in the material. And the material is the title of dates and times. That's a piece of the original case which I got from one of the lawyer, English lawyer who was involved. But of course we could take any TV listings that we can still find today. So to question is whether there is IP protection on that. There of course there might be some difference between the continent and the UK at least at that time. But there was a decision of the Irish court saying that there is a copyright. Maybe not all courts on the continent would conclude that there is a copyright on such a thing because it's all about information. The court of first instance as it was called at that time concluded that the refusal to license was preventing the production of a new product for which there was a potential consumer demand and was excluding all competition which was basically an abuse of dominant position to dominant position being reinforced by the IP rights. Reinforced because in this case you not only have to write but of course each broadcaster is as well to source source of information over the years to access this information. Except the broadcast because they are mastering their program. So there is no way to write in this case. But the court of justice in this case confirms that in exceptional circumstances so when there is a monopolisation of a downstream market and the prevention of a new product for which there is a consumer demand then there is an abuse if you refuse to grant a license. Of course that was a case where the material did not present much creativity. Then the other case which is an important case for refusal to license IP rights in both IMSLs. IMSLs is a large provider of data service. They sell data to pharma industry. The problem here is with a competitor in DC which wants to get some part of that market. IMSLs developed a so-called brick structure. It was called the 1860 brick structure which had became the standard for delivering the data to the pharma industry. The question was whether there was a possibility to refuse to grant a license on the use of this brick structure. It is a complicated procedure because there have been cases before the German courts and at the same time the competitor at DC made a complaint before the DG competition with the decision of the commission in 2001. A German courts then asked for a preliminary ruling on the conditions for refusal to license to be abusive under competition. That was this brick structure. Here you don't start to count them but you have 1860 different areas covering the German territory. Basically the information had to be a factor in this database. It seems it was not that easy to find a balance between going too much into deseguation of information because then there might be a privacy issue. If you know how many products are sold in this pharmacy and prescribed by that doctor. That goes too far because of the requirement of German privacy laws. You have to aggregate a little bit of data but it must still be valuable and give valuable information to the pharmaceutical company. IMSLs developed with the pharmaceutical company this brick structure and then refused to give a license. For the commission that's an essential facility and it's a kind of de facto industry standard which creates a lot of switching costs if the customers that is the pharmaceutical companies have to change. They have to change completely the reporting system, their database so it's a huge cost for them. No, I cannot go too much into details here but it's different. I won't discuss the Voven case which is an early decision on the same issue. Refusal to license in the case of design parts for cars. When you compare it with a McGill requirement, in McGill there need to be two markets. An upstream market and then some monopolisation of the downstream market. But here it's not clear that there are two markets. In fact there is only one product for which there is maybe no market as such. Because the brick structure is not solved. What is solved is the information that has to be embedded in this structure. So nobody is interested by the brick structure as such. So that's different as well from the McGill case. And then the ECJ in 2004 comes with the criteria for the refusal to be abusive. So first of all there should be some form of indispensability. When is a license from the right owner indispensable for a competitor to compete? That's a discussion about switching costs. But of course if they are switching costs they are probably cost first for the dominant firm when it establishes its position on the market. And I think you have to take that into account as well. And then to cause add something about the circumstances when the refusal is abusive. When you reserve to market and that was based on copyright as well on the database right. And that this reservation eliminates all competition on the market. Of course here there is as we saw the downstream market as such. And the competitor intends to offer new products not offered by the copyright owner and there is no objective justification. I think that's still the criteria applied in Europe including in more recent cases like the Microsoft case. Now another area of competition are major decisions. One of the issue there is to define what dominance is. And of course in order to assess whether a company is dominant you need to define the relevant market and in particular the relevant product market. That would be where the resource substitutability for instance for the consumers. Again I'm a little bit confident there because I know that there are experts and I'm not an expert in competition law but I think we are not yet there in terms of the definition of the relevant market for data. At least in a major decision like the Facebook WhatsApp decision of 2014 the commission concluded that there is no possibility to define a market because there is in fact no market. Because the data is not traded by those companies. Well WhatsApp even does not collect personal data. Facebook collects a lot of personal data but they don't sell directly to data. They use it to serve targeted ads but it's on the edge of the advertiser. They don't sell their database to the advertiser. So there is a difficulty to define a relevant product market for data in this case because data is only an input, an intermediary product. It's different in other cases because other companies like Twitter they sell the data and that's an example of all the personal and other data associated with a treat cannot go into details there but you have a lot of information associated with a treat that has some value. It appears because they sell to treats to some data aggregators. So here it's different. Here you have a real market but with other platforms like Google, Amazon their privacy policies explains explicitly that they don't sell to data to turn parties. So a lot of discussion about the economic nature of data. In principle it's non-reverberous in the sense that the fact that one entity has a lot of data does not preclude others from gathering the same information. The fact is as well that the same knowledge derived from the data usually can be extracted from other types of data. So in principle it's not revolverous but in practice companies are using different ways to exclude competitors to access to data. They might use contracts in terms of use, I won't say more on that, or by using IP rights. So I think we are at a moment where there is a discussion and it's an open discussion about there is something like data dominance in the case companies are gathering data that they don't sell to other companies. And you might have seen that last week that quite interesting the Bundeskartel started an investigation against Facebook. I think this procedure will probably show some light whether data has to be factoring in the competition analysis. Although they focus more on the terms of use of the social network which seems to be abusive in the sense that they are imposing unfair terms according to the Bundeskartel Amd in their press release of last week. And if this abusive practice results in market dominance there might be a problem from the competition point of view. Ok, I think I have to move on time is passing. Let's move to intellectual property law and how it affects data. That's a complex diagram, sorry for that. But I think it's good to be reminded about the tension between the different rights on information and the different freedoms to information. Of course, when dealing with data we have to find the good balance in between the two. So intellectual property of course is about restricting the access to information. Not to data access, it's always a qualified information in terms of an invention or a work by copyright and so on. But it's a way to restrict the access, that's quite clear. I will here discuss some aspects in relation to data. Copyright, database rights, trade secrets which are clearly part of intellectual property although trade secrets is a bit different than the predefined IP rights that you see on the left side. Data protection in a way works similarly to some intellectual property rights. I think big data in the space of intellectual property might be covered by issues involving trade secrets, as I said, copyright, data protection and we have on those issues different regulations in the background at different stages. I will discuss the revision of copyright exceptions, we are not yet very far. I will briefly mention the trade secret directive which will be adopted soon probably and the general data protection regulation which was adopted, there was a political agreement last December. So data mining and copyright, there is a problem there. I think there is a problem because we have in copyright rights which are broadly defined like the reproduction rights. Data mining and text mining implies reproduction that in principle are covered by copyright. Because the reproduction rights are disconnected from the economic nature of the act of reproduction. Many reproduction in the digital area are not linked to a true exploitation of the work and that might be the case with data mining. So if you are a little bit utopian you might then define the idea that there should be some kind of condition into reproduction rights and I have been working on that. That is when you are asked as an academic to be a little bit forward looking that there might be a requirement to use a work as a work for a reproduction in the sense of copyright to happen and that is not the case when you are making a copy for data mining or making a copy for using an anti-plagiarism software there are many other copies that are in principle covered by a reproduction right for which there is no exception so far in copyright law. So you cannot avoid the issue by requiring that there should be some type of use which implies that you are using to work for what it is and that is the means to communicate something with the public. Of course if you are using a work because you make a copy just to check whether there is plagiarism there is no in that sense a communication out there between the author and the public. So you might exclude by coming back to the rationale of the reproduction right. But I think probably we will need a legislative fix a new exception for data mining and quite recently in December commission came with a communication towards a modern more European Copyright framework and there they open to where to the introduction of an exception for text and data mining. Probably it will be quite narrow and too narrow because it will only cover to users in the context of science and research and probably that's what you have. I know that there is an exception already under UK law but it excludes as far as I know commercial use. Maybe it's too narrow because for the digital economy for the exploitation of big data you would need a broader exception. Maybe, I mean that's my view. Another issue in relation to aggregation of content and hyperlinks it's a complex issue too but some of you know the case law involving for instance the Svensson case where one company operates a monitoring service and that's a defendant in this case Svensson is a journalist and retrievers sent to its clients list of clickable links. The journalist consented to the online publication of the articles on the website of their newspapers but they oppose them to reuse by retriever which they reuse by hyperlinks and the big issue there is whether there is a communication to the public and the copyright law. Again we have a definition in a directive so the ECJ is competent to interpret what a communication to the public is the ECJ in this Svensson case came with two conditions there should be a communication but it's broadly defined and a new public and here there is no new public because it's the same public which can access the articles directly on the newspaper websites or indirectly through the list of links that retriever is sending to its clients. So there is no new public and the court concluded that there is no communication to the public for that reason but the court is not as clear as that because it adds some conditions and for instance a condition that of course this list of links doesn't circumvent technical protection measures, TPM In another decision they come back in Luxembourg with the requirement that there is a first authorization so there should be an authorization to put online the content first. I think the whole debate here is wrongly framed in the sense that the whole discussion seems to be about direct infringement but the court mixed what is a direct infringement so what is communication to the public and other possibility to regulate to be able by using indirect liability or by using the protection of technical protection measures so in the sense that the court of justice make a confusion by mixing the issue involving direct infringement with the issues involving the circumvention of technical measures and what is called indirect liability which is outside the scope of the ECJ I think it would be better to have a better distinction between the three and I think that would help to solve some of the copyright issues along the internet and involving data. Database right now there have been cases as well like the email web case involving a dedicated meta search engine which offers, as you can see, a high number of search in real time which include the ads that are on Autotrack. Autotrack is the source website and they are offering CalAds, second hand CalAds and in a way they suit for an infringement of the database right so that involves meta search engines and I think that is as well important for big data probably so in this case in a way used to search engine of the targeted site so it's different than the general search of Google which is developed by Google but here they are translating the queries on the meta search tool into the search engine of the targeted database and they offer the same type of result so is there a real utilisation of the database in this case you have here the definition in the database directive of what the way to digitisation of the content of the database implies and the court here concludes that there is a making available because there is some form of parasitical product that is offered by the meta search and it's as well a making available to the public because anyone can use the meta search tool another case that you might have been following the Ryan air case which was designed by the ECJ last year early 2015 so that's a website, PR Aviation which offers the possibility for consumers to search the data of low cost companies air companies to compare the price and even to book the flights commission that is paid to PR Aviation they use an automated search in today's dataset linked to the Ryan air website the Dutch court in this case decide that there is no copyright, there is no database which of course might be controversial but that's the fact of the case in the Netherlands and then the Dutch Supreme Court comes with some question because in this case Ryan air on its website has some terms of use as you can use, prohibit to use of automated systems like the one used by PR Aviation for commercial purpose so it's about screen scrapping of data scrapping that is prohibited when you look at the terms of use of the Ryan air website and it seems that at least for the users you have to accept this contractual provision is contrary to the mandatory exception to the database rights because the database rights cannot allow the owner, the maker of the database to prohibit to reuse of insubstantial parts of the database and the question is whether Ryan air can make a claim based on the terms of use and the court of justice says yes because there is no protection of the database neither by copyright nor by the database right outside the scope of the directive and the court concludes that it's possible to use contracts but of course it's for the national court to decide for instance whether they are enforceable but it's a little bit paradoxical of course because when there is no IP protection then more contractual restrictions can exist so it will be for the Dutch court to decide whether the contractual terms are enforceable and it seems here that will be about the possibility to enforce a quick wrap licence at least for the users of Ryan air, the Aristis ClickCrap licence it's unclear that the automated query by the aggravator as well as to go through the click wrap window ok, but data scrapping is covered by otherwise different national laws maybe trespass to Chateau here so it's an area probably where more should be done in terms of analysation but of course we should avoid an helpful legislation there have been in some countries like Germany and Spain as you might know laws creating new possibility against aggregators creating some form of right against snippets so that the so-called anti snippets laws pushed by press publishers among others so it's a different difficulty and I think the case law is struggling as well in different countries I won't say more because time is passing and I have to stop about trade secrets but of course the online platforms may enjoy the protection of trade secrets in relation to the data that they are collecting on their customers, on their suppliers, on the different side of the market so that's as well something to factor in the analysis briefly on data protection I think one of the issue there is data portability which is the right to reuse the data and we will have when the general data protection regulation will come into force we will have such right to reuse data which is a right justified by privacy but in a sense as well it's a trojan horse for competition because it might have far reaching consequences if every data subject can claim to right to receive the person on data and as the text says in a structure and commonly used format and has them to right to transmit the data to another controller that might change the rules of competition on some markets for some platforms of course it's not always that easy to implement this right and I think there are some attempts like my data initiative into UK okay I think I have to stop or I want to say something on the directive on contracts for the supply of digital content it's only a draft directive sorry which came out at the end of last year as well which is interesting because it shows that data are in commerce because the scope of this directive covers contracts when you have a supplier supplying digital content and when you pay either a price or you pay by giving your data of course you have to be a little bit active by register for instance but that shows that data are becoming a counter performance in contracts and I think we are starting to deal with data in contract law with this draft directive which creates obligations again obligations in the case of the termination of those supply contracts because in that case the supplier must take measure to refrain from the use of the counter performance and should allow the consumer to retrieve all content provided by the consumer and again in a commonly used data format so we see the legislator trying to solve some of these issues here in the context of contract and consumer law so I went a little bit beyond data protection here and I conclude what probably is really a little bit a mixed message so far and I'm not sure that the message after the conclusion will be clear because there are a lot of different things that I'll try to put together just to start to think about the role of data in the economy and in the law so what should be redesigned I think I mentioned some elements I think for certain area of the law like competition law I think we should tie the analysis by taking into account the real importance of data and maybe there should be something about data dominance and what it could mean which requires probably competition law to rethink some bits on the other side for intellectual property there I think we should relax partly to barriers to access and use data it's quite obvious for copyright and for the accession for data mining maybe in relation to aggregation and handling it's used to aggregate content there should be some clarification to there data scrapping in the context of database again something should be flexible enough but maybe a little bit clearer because we don't know for instance whether to contract our restrictions prohibiting to reuse of data are enforceable or not and about the data portability it's a new sector which might be maybe expanded so that's about the area what kind of regulation what makes sense I quite like what happened with the wrongly called right to be forgotten so right to be delisted by Google or by other search engines and that's again about personal data but it's about access to information online I think it's an interesting mix of regulation where you have the principle which was defined by a court in this case the justice of the EU based on mainly I think fundamental rights and need to balance those fundamental rights and then of course you have the compliance process the application of the ruling which involves partly self-regulation because today it's Google, it's Microsoft other companies which are deciding about the application of the right to be forgotten about when some data should remain accessible or when it should be deleted or at least not really deleted but there should be a deal linked to that information it has something worth more or less good but it raises some issues because Google, Microsoft aren't a sole judge about what should be delisted or not and there is no oversight so for the 4,000, nearly 4,000 no 400,000 sorry request treated by Google so far since the decision of the ECJ only to guidance of Google no to criteria that they are applying to respond positively or not to a demand of the listing maybe there should be something to involve some form of agiticators so need for platform regulation there I am a little bit more reluctant and by that words I stop here thank you for your attention