A recent judgment from Taiwan’s New Taipei District Court has sent shockwaves through the legal and tech communities last Friday. In the high-profile case between LawBank and Lawsnote, the court ruled that Lawsnote’s use of web crawling technology to extract LawBank’s legal evolution(法規沿革) data constitutes copyright infringement and unauthorized access to computer records. The verdict? A hefty NT$154,516,644(Approx. USD39,484,153) in damages and 4 years of imprisonment for 2 Lawsnote founders.  

The Core Dispute: Can Legal Evolution Data Be Copyrighted?  

LawBank argued that its curated legal evolution records—which detail the timeline of laws from enactment to implementation—qualify as a copyright-protected editorial work. With over 98,000 entries, each requiring an average of seven minutes to compile, the court recognized the effort as creative and protectable under copyright law.  

On the other hand, Lawsnote, a legal tech startup known for its innovative use of data mining to enhance legal research, used web crawling to access these records. The court deemed this a violation of copyright law and unauthorized access to computer data, sparking intense discussions about the boundaries of copyright and technology.  

Why It Matters: Copyright vs. Innovation  

This case raises critical questions for the legal and legal-tech industries:  

1. Does legal evolution data truly meet the threshold for copyright protection?  

Many argue that such factual compilations, while labor-intensive, lack the originality required for copyright protection.  

2. What does this mean for AI, big data, and legal tech innovation?  

As firms increasingly rely on data mining and AI to improve efficiency, overly restrictive copyright interpretations could stifle progress and innovation in legal technology.  
 
Opinion: Balancing Protection and Progress 

In my view, this case highlights the urgent need for a balanced approach to copyright in the digital age. While protecting intellectual property is crucial, we must also ensure that legal frameworks do not hinder technological advancement and innovation. The challenge lies in finding a middle ground where creativity is rewarded without stifling the tools and techniques that drive progress.