Congrats! Web scraping is legal! (US precedent)

Post by scotty79 » Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

DougWebb wrote: post #65

kabacha wrote: post #11

The toxicity towards web-scraping is really what makes me lose hope in the current web. People want their data to be public and all of the benefits that comes with public data but then they want to chose who gets to see it - it's a complete and utter paradox. This precedent doesn't really mean much but is definitely step in the right direction.

One of my clients is involved in property tax collection and reporting. Property Tax records are public info, and their website allows looking up the records for any property without a login. However, the data behind this website it the _source_ of the public records, and not the public records themselves (which would be local government databases). For years now we've been in an arms race with someone using a botnet…

Post by buboard » Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 3:00 PM UTC

TrackerFF wrote: post #45

kabacha wrote: post #11

The toxicity towards web-scraping is really what makes me lose hope in the current web. People want their data to be public and all of the benefits that comes with public data but then they want to chose who gets to see it - it's a complete and utter paradox. This precedent doesn't really mean much but is definitely step in the right direction.

I can understand why some do not want scrapers - increased traffic (with practically zero benefits to the owners) is one obvious reason. (Some people will then say "But why not just offer APIs", but that's a lot of extra work and maintenance). It's like with instagram and other social media platforms. The content creators put in the hard work, while the leeches are stealing content for their own benefit, giving zero…

Post by fludlight » Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 3:00 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #42

fludlight wrote: post #25

This only affects the ninth circuit—which includes the tech hubs San Francisco, Seattle, LA, and Portland. It would only apply to the rest of the country if the Supreme Court affirmed it. Even then, a well-funded company or zealous prosecutor could say that it doesn’t apply in your case because of some technicality. In that case you would need hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars and a few years to litigate t…

> This only affects the ninth circuit—which includes the tech hubs San Francisco, Seattle, LA, and Portland. It is only binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit, it is less accurate to say it only effects the Ninth Circuit, since decisions have effect other than as binding precedent.

Post by learc83 » Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 3:01 PM UTC

DougWebb wrote: post #65

kabacha wrote: post #11

The toxicity towards web-scraping is really what makes me lose hope in the current web. People want their data to be public and all of the benefits that comes with public data but then they want to chose who gets to see it - it's a complete and utter paradox. This precedent doesn't really mean much but is definitely step in the right direction.

One of my clients is involved in property tax collection and reporting. Property Tax records are public info, and their website allows looking up the records for any property without a login. However, the data behind this website it the _source_ of the public records, and not the public records themselves (which would be local government databases). For years now we've been in an arms race with someone using a botnet…

Post by wtetzner » Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 3:02 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #35

kabacha wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See that's where I have problem with this. Isn't data just _data_? Lets draw some pararells to real life. If I go to public space like town square - can't I take pictures, notes and records then go home and draw my analytics from it? What if I read something in a book I bought, can't I quote it? Same thing should be with web resources even if they are creative - as long as I don't publish them I should be able to scr…

> Isn't data just data ? No. At the risk of just repeating the comment you didn't understand, creative works are not "just data" - they are copyrightable works that the owner has control over who can use them, not just for profit, but for any reason with few exceptions. You don't just get to drop someone else's work product into your algorithm without their permission.