Slashdot Mirror


Texas Court Blocks Screen-Scraper

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."

13 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. Texas court decision? by Hayzeus · · Score: 4, Funny
    A Texas court has granted American Airlines an injunction against Farechaser

    The article also fails to mention that Farechaser was sentenced to death by lethal injection in the same decision...

    1. Re:Texas court decision? by merlin_jim · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wouldn't that more appropriately be:

      The article also fails to mention that Farechaser was sentenced to death by legal injunction in the same decision...

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    2. Re:Texas court decision? by Darth · · Score: 3, Funny

      > The article also fails to mention that Farechaser was sentenced to death by lethal injection in the same decision...

      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"

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
  2. Oh, the EFF... by BSDevil · · Score: 2, Funny

    As much as I love them, this is is one of those cases where they can't tell if they're coming or going. Maybe they'll write an Amicus Curae for both sides, and confuse the shit out of the judge.

    And for the record, I sent in my annual EFF cheque last month :P

    --
    Cue The Sun...
    1. Re:Oh, the EFF... by petronivs · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Your honor, since we support the right of Farechaser to repackage the information that American Airlines publicly distributes on their site, we respectfully request that you lay upon American Airlines the full smackdown of the law."

      "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."

      --
      This is the real signature
      (Beats those shadows on the cave wall, don't it?)
  3. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by jazman_777 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Does anybody know where I can read any case law on screen scraping? Aside from the current article, that is.

    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.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  4. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Funny
    Yeah, without copyright protection, what incentive does American Airlines have to ... um .. have prices? (Recycled joke, got me a 5 funny once, I think.)

    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.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  5. FareChase T&Cs by nm42 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Part of the Terms stated You agree that you will not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure.

    Does posting the link on Slashdot count?

  6. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

    just write a screen-scraper program to go out there and search for the case law :-)

  7. TERMS AND CONDITIONS by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 5, Funny

    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS COMMENT: YOU MUST AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS BEFORE READING THIS SLASHDOT COMMENT. Copying this comment is prohibited. Thinking about this comment is prohibited. Once you have begun reading this comment, you must leave at least one window of your browser open at this comment for the rest of Time. Prohibited circumvention measures include, but are not limited to, scrolling up or down, closing the browser window, or restarting your computer. All readers whose browser does not stay open to this comment for the rest of Time will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. You attest that you will be fully responsible for this obligation regardless of any outside forces that may inhibit your ability to carry out this obligation, including but not limited to unstable Microsoft software, power outages, plagues of locusts, or the Apocalypse. Reading this comment while not under the influence of alcohol is prohibited. You may not tell your friends about this comment. Telling anyone that this comment was funny is prohibited. Moderating it "Funny" is prohibited, and offenders will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Reading this comment while sitting in front of a computer is prohibited. All violators of this comment are required by law to pay the specified fine of $10,000 to xenon@@microsoftsucks.org using PayPal. This EULA is considered a part of this comment and is the intellectual property of the owner. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

    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.

  8. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by glwtta · · Score: 3, Funny
    except they were just demanding that I work 60+ hrs a week. I refused

    Holy shit! You can do that??

    ;) just kidding - I love my job, wouldn't go home if they made me.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  9. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by seanadams.com · · Score: 2, Funny

    copyrightable[1]
    [1] Is that really a word?


    Perfectly cromulant in my book.

  10. Re:EFF by unitron · · Score: 2, Funny
    Well if the Canadian Post Office owns the word "Post" then they must own the word "Office" as well. With the right lawyers they could wind up owning Microsoft :-)

    Oh yeah, from now on, they get a nickel every time you buy Canadian bacon, too.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.