Kudos to the WP for ongoing coverage of this case. There are important issues being litigated here that could affect everyone, and I'd argue they are worth discussing without regard to this particular defendant and the sheer stupidity of his actions. However, I find WP's use of Poulson's activities as an example of "legitimate" automated HTML retrieval ("scraping") to be an odd one. It seems an awkward a comparison t…
>> The irony of this has always intrigued me: Google may crawl your servers, but under Google's policies, you may not crawl Google's servers. It looks like some of their site can be crawled and some not, that's how robots.txt has worked for a long time: http://www.google.com/robots.txt
And search results (the data they have obtained via crawling others' sites) is not among the data that can be crawled.
What are you suggesting?