Texas Court Blocks Screen-Scraper 433
An anonymous reader writes "A Texas court has granted American Airlines
an injunction against Farechaser to stop them from using a screen-scraper to copy airfare information from their website in violation of the terms and conditions. In a stunning display of hypocrisy, Farechase.com's own terms and conditions prohibit users from doing to them exactly what they are doing to AA.com. The EFF is involved, but it's unclear whether they're supporting the enforceability of a website's terms and conditions or Farechase's right to violate them."
It's a sad time (Score:2, Interesting)
Did the web die suddenly or did it just wither away without anyone noticing?
Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:5, Insightful)
what right do you have to be angry when someone, *gasp* uses that information?
Well, it's one thing if the people 'using' the information aren't charging for it. I'm not familiar with the circumstances of this particular case. If you are charging for the information you're grabbing then it gets into the grey area...
neurostarRe:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright, that's what.
Imagine if you write excellent articles, which indirectly pays for your website, and another (probably bigger) website just copies your stuff without paying you or even crediting you.
The circumstances are not exactly the same, but the law is basically the same. Past fair use (such as quoting a paragraph in a review), you need permission to republish.
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:5, Informative)
Remember Walmart trying to sue over the Black Friday?
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:2, Informative)
It is a weird and not entirely logical batch of case law.
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:3, Informative)
What kind of phone books? The white pages, for example, are NOT copyrightable. This was decided by the Supreme Court, in Fiest vs. Rural Telephone.
The court agreed with the lower courts that putting together a phone book was a lot of work, but decided that the Constitution requires that there be some creativity, and "take the names of everyone with a phone and put them in alphabetical order" doe
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is where I go out on a limb because I could not find the citation. I remember reading that the Supreme Court ruled in a case where a map publisher sued another publisher for copyright infringement. The defendant used the plaintiffs map to create a new map. The plaintiff had introduced small errors into the maps in order detect such copying. The court ruled in favor of the defendant on the basis that since it was a new representation, it did not copy the creative aspect of the map. The introduction of errors is not a basis for copyright protection because nobody would ever be able to copy facts.
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:5, Interesting)
The "Copyright Basics" page of the US Copyright Office lists the following as not copyrightable:
In any case, I don't feel too much sympathy for somebody who plucks airfares from airline sites. The accuracy is questionable (unlike a real travel agent site, who can in fact realize the price for you), to say the least.
If what you say is true, can I just rip off the numbers from, say, Tom's Hardware, and republish benchmarks with my own text?
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:5, Insightful)
Emphasis added. I think you could reasonably argue that the website fell into the category of "public document or other common sources". If they tabulate their data and make it available on the webite - which I'm willing to bet is the case - then it would seem that the US Copyright Office would not conisder the information to be copyrightable[1], unless they're using "public documents" in some twisted legal sense...
[1] Is that really a word?
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and its antonym, "uncopyrightable", is the longest word in the English language without repeated letters.
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:2)
Copyright has nothing to do with it. (Score:2)
Copyright has nothing to do with it.
They're using data, not copyrighted material.
The circumstances are not exactly the same
Actually, the circumstances are not remotely the same. You're talking about copyrighted material, and data.
the law is basically the same.
No, it isn't. Copyright cannot be applied to facts. Pricing is a fact, therefore it's not subject to copyright.
You can copyright the format of the data, but not the data itself. Since the screen-scaper is extracti
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:4, Funny)
What you wrote actually makes sense, since you're talking about the creative act of writing articles. But this story is about prices.
Pricing information isn't copyrightable. And it shouldn't be, either. It's totally outside the scope of copyright's purpose. Using copyright to inhibit the market's knowledge of prices, is just that: an attempt to subvert the market. It shouldn't be tolerated, except IN SOVIET RUSSIA.
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:2, Flamebait)
The question is whether this material can be copyrighted in the first place. The Supreme Court has previously stated that unoriginal composition, such as the numbers in a phone book, can not be copyrighted. Similarly, merely copying the information contained on the airline's website should be permissable, so long as they don't copy the site's
Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... (Score:2)
What right do you have? Dude, ever heard of "copy" right?
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
But, its not just about the information, they are accessing their hardware using their bandwidth ignoring the agreement. Its the same thing spamers do that make everyone here yell. Funny how people can change their opinion when the afected is a for-profit company.
I can open a restaurant and give menus away so my clients
Texas court decision? (Score:4, Funny)
The article also fails to mention that Farechaser was sentenced to death by lethal injection in the same decision...
Re:Texas court decision? (Score:4, Funny)
The article also fails to mention that Farechaser was sentenced to death by legal injunction in the same decision...
Re:Texas court decision? (Score:4, Funny)
they fell victim to a rarely used section of the "he needed killin" clause.
in Texas, it's ok to pop somebody as long as "he needed killin"
Legal implications? (Score:4, Insightful)
Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:5, Interesting)
My employer has "requested" that I write a screen scraper to grab information from a competitor's site. The data will then be put into our databases, and sold as our own. This is in violation of the competitor's terms of agreement, and I have thus far not done this.
I am unable to find anything on Google relating to the legality of this, but I believe that it is probably not legal. However, I was told to "do it and let the lawyers deal with it".
Whether it is legal or not, I do not feel that it is ethical, and may leave the company if I am pushed to do this.
Does anybody know where I can read any case law on screen scraping? Aside from the current article, that is.
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:3, Informative)
Civil though, I have no idea...
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:2)
Not if it is factual information, as supported by the classic supreme court decision of Feist Publishing vs. Rural Telephone Service Company [floridalawfirm.com], which held that facutal information cannot be copyrighted.
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:5, Informative)
If the information is in a restricted site, (must register to access) Then it is not public, and the agreements are generally held in more cases. If anything courts have been leaning against screen scraping, even on 'public' sites.
findlaw or the cornell law site likely has information regarding this. There's also been past
It's of questionable ethics, but I also don't see how you're company will be able to sell something that people can get for free elsewhere. (And if it is not free, the courts are much less likely to side in your company's favor)
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:3, Interesting)
The code is copyrighten, and the owners of said copyright (even GPL'd code) can hold others liable for it's republication. The GPL [in non-legal terms] waives this restriction as long as certain conditions are met, among which is inclusion of the GPL in the republication. Hence trying to republish the code under a different license does not meet the conditions, and is
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:5, Funny)
You've come to the right place, pardner. While none of us really _is_ a lawyer, each of us is more than willing to pretend.
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:5, Insightful)
You could send an anonymous letter to your companies lawyers, boards of directors, and CEO.
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:5, Interesting)
well, if you like your job, don't leave the company, just refuse to do it (make it clear that you are not doing it no matter what). They may not fire you just to avoid the embarassment, and if they do, you may have grounds to sue if you want (assuming it turns out to be illegal). My guess is they'll hire someone else to do that and you'll not have to touch it, but keep you on for everything else.
I was in a similar situation once, except they were just demanding that I work 60+ hrs a week. I refused and they gave me a severance package I wouldn't have gotten had I quit.
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:4, Funny)
Holy shit! You can do that??
;) just kidding - I love my job, wouldn't go home if they made me.
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:5, Insightful)
You may be fired because of your beliefs. At that point, you just have to decide which is more valuable: your beliefs or your jobs (hint: your beliefs are). On the other hand, your boss may simply be having a weak moment in his own beliefs. You ought to try to talk to him about this, and not in a self-righteous way. Try to make the case that you can't build a successful company [enron.com] or a successful life [whitehouse.gov] without character. Your company and your own bank account might prosper in the short run, but eventually the way the universe works catches up to you...even if it's not before you die.
At any rate, it sounds like you've got the right tickets to begin with. Good luck.
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:2, Insightful)
You beliefs are only more important if you are wealthy enough to be able to be jobless. Only wealthy people can afford to be idealistic.
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:4, Insightful)
I think upon consideration you'll discover that's not what you believe either.
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like your company wants to break not just the terms of service, but possibly copyright laws.
As a rule, your employer is barred from forcing you to break the law. If they fire you from refusing in good will to break the law, you can sue them for not only back wages but punitive damages. A great article on this subject by Eben Morgan in Linux Journal called "My Boss Made Me Install Warez" should help with the specific details, some of what I said is probably wrong.
Obviously, you should seek counsel or at least tell your employer you intend to. They may decide to back down.
Once again, I am not a lawyer.
Case law -- eBay v. Bidder's Edge (Score:5, Informative)
In Bidder's Edge, the federal court granted eBay an injunction preventing Bidder's Edge from harvesting information from eBay's website for the purpose of using it on the Bidder's Edge site.
IANAL (but I will be in a couple years), so don't expect legal advice from me.
I think the Bidder's Edge case was decided on a weird basis (eBay has a right to protect its servers from harm), rather than the reasons you'd expect (eBay's data shouldn't be jacked by competitors and used to hurt eBay's business). Nonetheless, I expect other courts would rule the same way on a similar case.
Note: in this case, eBay has specifically told Bidder's Edge not to take the data.
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:2)
Unless they want you to do something criminal (i.e., lie, cook the books, cause harm), it's not your job to worry about Patent, Copyright, Trademark, or Licencing issues. Just do what they asked you to do, and let your Legal Department worry about the legal problems. (You may want to take the time to VERBALLY give legal a heads-up so they can look into it. After that, you're done.)
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:3, Interesting)
I am guessing that so far he has asked you to do this out of the corner of his mouth so he is not responsible. If you force him to commit a paper trail to the endeavor, he might suddenly grow similar ethics;-) Never underestimate the power of a signature in the business world.
Tread softly (Score:3, Insightful)
My advice here is make sure you have a new job lined up. I "took a stand" about 14 months ago, ended up being pushed out, and just got a new job a few days ago. Moral of the story? Have a fallback position, or a big bank account.
See, they can't fire you for refusing to break the law, but "you're not a team player" situations like this can lead to people getting fired for forgetting to refil
Similar "illegality" (Score:3, Insightful)
They also made an offer to all the current phone people for continued employment. Not all accepted.
Now...we (I) had written a personnel database to manage the phone peoples schedules, hiring, firing. This included name, address, phone, SSAN, paygrade, etc, etc. The new company also bought this.
I get a phone call from the IT VP "Send so and so a copy (incl design, etc) of the personnel program. Includin
Re:Screenscrapers and the Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, he is not wrong in asking you to do this. There is a difference between doing something that is 'not legal'- ie something the business can get sued for, and something that is 'illegal', ie he cannot ask you to rob a liquor store.
First, you need to get some CYA. Tell him you will do it, but he has to make his boss awa
Oh, the EFF... (Score:2, Funny)
And for the record, I sent in my annual EFF cheque last month
Re:Oh, the EFF... (Score:3, Funny)
"Your honor, since we cannot support the practices of Farechaser in refusing the right to repackage information on their site, we respectfully request that you lay upon Farechaser the full smackdown of the law."
Screen scraping - OK. Reselling - not OK (Score:5, Insightful)
What's at issue is if you are breaking the law by re-selling what you have scraped, and thus depriving the original information creator of some right.
Now go ahead and mod me "-1: Where's the fun in that?"
Re:Screen scraping - OK. Reselling - not OK (Score:2)
Say you venture down to a library which is full of public information on various topics. While you are there you 'scrap' some information out of books and then present in in your own format (say a written report) and give credit in the report to the sources of information.
Now why can't you sell your report?
You used publicly available information to create a new work which I think you should be entitled to sell.
Re:Screen scraping - OK. Reselling - not OK (Score:2)
American Airlines is claiming that since screen scraping is a violation of the terms of their website that anyone who visits the website for that purpose is in some sense trespassing.
Of course the reason that they are upset is because the information is being resold, but in addition to that issue AA is also trying to argue that the act of screen scraping is itself illegal (since it violates the terms which you presumably agree to in order to use their site).
Re:Screen scraping - OK. Reselling - not OK (Score:2)
booo the man (Score:2)
What's next, are they gonna sue google for caching their pages?
Public Information (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose this is just another untested area of the law, and a company (especially a public company) is obligated to protect itself as far as the law allows. If it's not specifically against the law, the company can make whatever restrictions on it's published information it wants -- it's called copyright.
But, in the end, I think it would be better for everyone if screen scraping is protected legally. Freedom of information, baby!
Re:Public Information (Score:3, Informative)
Books are publicly published, but you're still not allowed to post its contents on a website, or otherwise republish the copyrighted material.
Re:Public Information (Score:2)
Re:Public Information (Score:2)
Re:Public Information (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, I worked for a company that had searchable online databases. We noticed that some people were clearly walking their way thru a database. In other words, they weren't searching to satisfy some query, they were downloading our database, presumably to resell.
We didn't take legal action, we just blocked those people who looked like they were mining.
Public Information (Score:2)
I must say I hate hypocrisy - such a rank stench ("do what I say, not what I do").
Re:Public Information (Score:2)
By that logic, it should be illegal to refuse to give your wallet to me when I threaten to shoot you if you don't. I want it, after all, and that's the extent of your logic.
Moron.
Re:Public Information (Score:5, Funny)
So far you have:
1) The reason that screen-scraping is problematic is because major companies want to be on the web and have visitors.
2) ??????
3) ??????
4) ??????
5) it should be illegal to refuse to give your wallet to me when I threaten to shoot you if you don't.
I don't get it.... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's untested on-line but stealing and reselling/distributing things as your own which aren't your own has always been illegal. It's just that the copyright owner tends to not care. But that's THEIR decision. NOT YOURS. I don't get why this isn't a cut and dry case.
Imagine taking a College Times article and publishing it without permission in your paper under your name. You'd be sued faster than you can blink even though the paper can be picked up for free.
Oh that's right, it's different in this case because it's ON THE INTERNET!
Ben
Terms and Conditions (Score:3, Interesting)
BOL.com, says in it's members agreement, that you may not re-sell anyhting you buy from them!
I mean.... WTF?
People play God, when they write EULAs and the like.
I told BOL, I wanted clarification on this term, and they wrote back addressing something else I'd written in my email, and ignoring my main point (a favourite tactic of people who know they're not on the level.)
I wrote back stating that I was considering reporting them to the Off
Next thing you know... (Score:2, Interesting)
...they'll try to stop you from describing sports events. [nhl.com]
Interesting reading (Score:3, Insightful)
A little insight into an inter-corporate IT skirmish. I suppose the "masking" involved spoofing the client header as some version of IE. Anyone got inside dirt on this?
Re:Interesting reading (Score:2, Interesting)
I assume that American has blocked all of Farechase's IP address blocks? It should be possible to detect the behaviour of Farechase's software, and block more IPs on the fly. There still should be a technical solution to this without requiring all the legal huff'n'puff.
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
A fundamental distinction (Score:5, Insightful)
Provided fair use conditions are posted, I don't see where the scraper has a leg to stand on. If you are a competitor, you have different rules, as your intention and the actions that follow your intentions separate you from a normal consumer. To illustrate, it is fair use for me to go to the library and photocopy an article out of a journal and use it as source material for a paper. It is NOT fair use for me to photocopy the article and put it in my own magazine, publishing it as if it was mine, copyright and all.
That being said, I would be very interested in an informed reply from a lawyer that specializes in these matters.
Re:A fundamental distinction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A fundamental distinction (Score:2)
Having given it some thought, I just have to wonder why the airline just didn't block the scraper when they came to the site.
Re:A fundamental distinction (Score:4, Interesting)
Feist Publications, INC. v. Rural Tel. Service Co., 499 US 340 (1991) [findlaw.com]
Re:A fundamental distinction (Score:2)
Re:A fundamental distinction (Score:3, Informative)
Fair use conditions don't have to be posted. They are implicitly granted to the user by copyright law, not explicitly by the copyright holder.
IANAL, but common sense tells me that quoting one airfare from a website falls under fare use, but taking an entire table of data and republishing it with your own copyright statement on it does not.
Wouldn't this be considered a database (Score:2)
Consider an earlier precedent... (Score:2)
If you recall an article about Fatwallet getting in trouble for posting prices obtained from other sources [slashdot.org], it was determined that prices were copyrightable. AA has a good arguement based on that precedent.
Re:Consider an earlier precedent... (Score:5, Informative)
At least try to pay attention.
Innovation may be hampered (Score:3, Insightful)
Froogle? (Score:3)
Re:Froogle? (Score:4, Interesting)
The people in this case are stealing information solely for their own gain.
Ben
FareChase T&Cs (Score:3, Funny)
Does posting the link on Slashdot count?
Scrapper Load (Score:5, Informative)
Block their scraping servers (Score:3, Interesting)
I noticed that a bunch of smaller companies were scraping our content, stuff we owned, and redisplayed it on their sites..
So, what we did was block the servers that were scraping us, and it largely has stopped the problem. Trying to stop the remaining theifs from manually copying our content isn't worth our legal department's time, and since they are all teny tiny sites doing this, we don't care that much anymore.
But the larger theifs who were profiting from out content --and scraping in large amounts-- don't do so anymore as a result from denying their scraping servers.
Screen scraping and privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Many here are posting "What's wrong with screen scraping? The information is there, I can get it, what's the problem?"
By the same token, many decry things like Amazon.com selling their address just because "they have it".
Information is information. If you have the "right" to scrape whatever you want and distribute it however you want, then companies have the right to distribute your personal information to whomever they want, under whatever circumstances they want.
I prefer to live in the world where control over information on the societal level is still allowed; no concept of privacy can exist without it. Not letting people screen scrape isn't even something I'd consider a "price".
To be a bit more theoretical, there is value in information transfer.
This is a summary of a much longer and more complete argument, but it should get a lot of the point across. I won't be defending this on a point-by-point basis in replies as a result.
Re:Screen scraping and privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Bzzz, sorry, no. The difference is this: American Airlines put the information out there, in the public. I agree that if I start renting billboards and posting my address in 1,000,000 pt font on them, then I cannot cry foul if someone g
Re:Screen scraping and privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Using your logic google should be illegal. You can find out a lot about people using google. It's a complete and utter invasion of privacy, it should be closed. I think you'll find people completely disagree with you.
However, I would say that Amazon selli
Hehe (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice to see that they don't bother with stupid techie nonsense like a robots.txt [aa.com] file.
Is AOL's .art format legal? class action question (Score:5, Interesting)
I think a class action lawsuit is in order.
web aggregation and circumventing TOS (Score:3, Interesting)
From reading the injunction, it seems that FareChaser sells its screen-scraping services to corporations, and I have no idea if they have some "power of attorney" agreement between themselves and their customers. Perhaps they should hire some sharper lawyers?
TERMS AND CONDITIONS (Score:5, Funny)
NO WARRANTY: THIS COMMENT IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND IF YOU DON'T LIEK THE SPEELING YOU HAVE TO PAY ANOTHER $10,000 FINE TO ME.
--
They can't force customers not to tell their friends about the prices, so how the hell do they have a right to stop anyone from relaying that information automatically? This kind of nonsense reminds me of software EULAS: You can't see the license before you buy it, but you must agree to the license to use the software and you can't return the software if you don't like the license because there aren't any stores in the world that accept returns on opened software. They're esssentially extorting rights from you without giving you any choice other than to throw away the software you just paid $$$ for. Posting something on a website is equivalent to posting a comment on slashdot, which is equivalent to yelling it out in public. You can't have a website listing prices or goods and have a website EULA prohibiting other sites from parroting it (xxxxxxxx company is selling xxxxxx for $xxx) any more than you can yell something out on the street and then force others to not tell anyone what you just said (or else get sued) by then dictating a verbal EULA for whatever you just yelled out.
EFF not "involved", supports Farechase (Score:5, Informative)
We may get involved with the case as it proceeds, but for the moment, we've just posted a copy of the injunction for reference.
It's about controlling the distribution channel... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ultimatly this is about controlling the distribution channel for tickets: first stop paying commission to travel agents (that's right! they make 0% commission now) and now try to put a clamp around screen scrapers.
Then there's the the fact that Orbitz is owned by the majors and is the very definition of collusion.
The owners of Worldspan (which powers Orbitz and is Delta, American and Northwest) plan on bypassing SABRE and putting inventory on Worldspan for sale through Orbitz. This has already been announced. Why? Because if you buy a ticket through a SABRE channel (like travelocity), SABRE charges AA (and every other airline) a $4 segment fee. Not so when you buy it through your own CRS/GDS system.
Again, it's about controlling the distribution channel.
I wouldn't know this except I used to be employed by American as a SABRE programmer.
American is nothing more than a bunch of slimy bastards (like all airlines with the exceptions of Southwest and JetBlue) and will deserve their bankruptcy filing when they do it.
And they WILL given the failed airline economic model that the "majors" subscribe to. In a very funny ironic turn of events two new 747s are valued at more than the whole of AMR (AA's parent).
Don't buy their stock anytime soon except to short it.
It's free information, for a price. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EFF (Score:2)
They should not be any information made publicto be freely copied. Are you saying because a book that has been made public, one you can copy the book and then sell the copies.
This is not the first case of its kind, the first circuit court of appeals have upheld similar on another case EF CULTURAL TRAVEL v. EXPLORICA, INC [findlaw.com]
Re:EFF (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:EFF (Score:3, Funny)
Oh yeah, from now on, they get a nickel every time you buy Canadian bacon, too.
Re:EFF (Score:4, Interesting)
This was no simple case of "incorrectly" displaying a web page. This was a case of intentionally modifying the text of a potentially copyrighted work, providing links to some external site.
In my opinion, and obviously many others (since it seems to have gone away on its own anyway), what they did was sneaky and wrong, not unlike many similar spyware programs.
As for this case, hm, I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this. I kinda want to say that, copyright aside, just the fact that they took the time to compile the list, and are making it available *to their visitors*, makes it wrong to just copy the data and post it on your own site. But, then again, I'm not sure. It's a tough one...
Re:Ambiguity (Score:3, Informative)
here [aclu.org] and here [aclu.org]. And that's just in a couple moments spent searching on the ACLU's own site.
Re:/. involvement? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I am surprised at some of Slashdot's response (Score:3, Insightful)
If people scrape you and mirror your data, the load on your server should go DOWN. If this is not actually the case, then you can't really claim any sort of harm.
This would be better described as "involuntary mirroring" than "screen-scraping".