Political Science Law
| Open Access |
DOI: Legal Ontology Of A Website: Shifting From “Information Resource” To “Complex Object” In Civil Law Jurisdictions
Saidov Bobur , Lecturer at the Department of Cyber Law, Tashkent state university of Law, UzbekistanAbstract
This article examines the legal qualification of websites within the civil law framework of Uzbekistan, arguing that the prevailing administrative-law concept of "information resource" is inadequate for protecting intellectual property rights and facilitating commercial transactions. Through formal-juridical and comparative legal analysis, the study deconstructs a website into its constituent elements—source code, visual design, content, and domain name—each governed by distinct legal regimes. The findings reveal significant legislative gaps that impede the recognition of websites as unified objects of civil rights. The article proposes the introduction of Article 81¹ into the Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, defining a website as a "complex object" (slozhnyy ob'yekt) and digital asset, thereby aligning national legislation with contemporary doctrinal developments and international best practices.
Keywords
Website, complex object, information resource
References
Lessig, L. (2006). Code: Version 2.0. Basic Books.
Savelyev, A. I. (2016). Contract Law 2.0: Smart Contracts as the Beginning of the End of Classic Contract Law. Higher School of Economics Research Paper, No. WP BRP 71/LAW/2016.
Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On the Strategy 'Digital Uzbekistan 2030'" No. UP-6079, dated October 5, 2020.
Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On Informatization" No. 560-II, dated December 11, 2003 (as amended).
Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Part One), adopted December 21, 1995, and (Part Two), adopted August 29, 1996 (as amended).
Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On Copyright and Related Rights" No. 42, dated July 20, 2006 (as amended).
Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On Legal Protection of Computer Programs and Databases" No. 1060-XII, dated May 6, 1994 (as amended).
Dozortsev, V. A. (2003). Intellectual Rights: Concept, System, Codification Tasks. Statut.
Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the Legal Protection of Databases. Official Journal, L 77, 27.3.1996, pp. 20-28.
Ginsburg, J. C. (2001). Copyright and Control over New Technologies of Dissemination. Columbia Law Review, 101(7), 1613-1647.
Koelman, K. J. (2004). Fixing the Three-Step Test. European Intellectual Property Review, 26(10), 407-412.
Reichman, J. H. (1994). Legal Hybrids Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms. Columbia Law Review, 94(8), 2432-2558.
Lipton, J. D. (2010). Internet Domain Names, Trademarks and Free Speech. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Dinwoodie, G. B. (2000). (National) Trademark Laws and the (Non-National) Domain Name System. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 21(3), 495-522.
Merges, R. P. (1997). The End of Friction? Property Rights and Contract in the 'Newtonian' World of On-Line Commerce. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 12(1), 115-136.
Lemley, M. A. (2007). Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding. Texas Law Review, 83(4), 1031-1075.
Samuelson, P. (2016). Functionality and Expression in Computer Programs: Refining the Tests for Software Copyright Infringement. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 31(2), 1215-1300.
Harbinja, E. (2017). Legal Aspects of Transmission of Digital Assets on Death. In The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology (pp. 556-581). Oxford University Press.
Sudarikov, S. A. (2010). Fundamentals of Copyright Law. Prospect.
Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Part Four, Federal Law No. 230-FZ, dated December 18, 2006 (as amended).
Goldstein, P., & Hugenholtz, P. B. (2019). International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, September 9, 1886, as revised at Paris on July 24, 1971, and amended in 1979.
Fairfield, J. A. T. (2005). Virtual Property. Boston University Law Review, 85(4), 1047-1102.
Balganesh, S. (2013). The Pragmatic Incrementalism of Common Law Intellectual Property. Vanderbilt Law Review, 63(6), 1543-1614.
Mann, R. J. (2004). Secured Credit and Software Financing. Cornell Law Review, 85(1), 134-188.
Schwarcz, S. L. (2002). Securitization of Intellectual Property Assets. Cardozo Law Review, 23(4), 1539-1574.
Burk, D. L. (2001). Muddy Rules for Cyberspace. Cardozo Law Review, 21(1-2), 121-179.
European Commission. (2015). A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe. COM(2015) 192 final.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2019). WIPO Technology Trends 2019: Artificial Intelligence. WIPO.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, April 15, 1994.
Download and View Statistics
Copyright License
Copyright (c) 2025 Saidov Bobur
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.