Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Texas Court Blocks Screen-Scraper

Posted by timothy on from the bits-is-bits dept.

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."

7 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. Screenscrapers and the Law by aridhol · · Score: 5, Interesting
    OK, Was going to Ask Slashdot this, but since it's already sorta on topic...

    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.

    --
    I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
    1. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by DonkeyJimmy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      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.

      --
      "Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." -Philips
    2. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by Hal_9000@!!!@ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IANAL!

      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.

      --
      My email is real.
  2. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by GlassHeart · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Facts are not copyrightable.

    The "Copyright Basics" page of the US Copyright Office lists the following as not copyrightable:

    • Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
    • Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
    • Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)
    I don't see how "prices" or "facts" immediately fit in, and I don't have the ability to interpret the actual law, so I'll stop right here.

    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?

  3. Re:A fundamental distinction by Sarcazmo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You have indeed touched upon an important point. Fair use isn't really the issue here. It can easily be argued that airline fares are facts. Facts can't be copyrighted.

    Feist Publications, INC. v. Rural Tel. Service Co., 499 US 340 (1991)

  4. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by TuballoyThunder · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Not entirely true. Under 17 USC 102(b) facts are not protected by copyright (the EU does protect collections of facts ref). Under 17 USC 103&101 works "formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." White pages are not protected because there is no creativity.

    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.

  5. It's about controlling the distribution channel... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    American uses Sabre internally (in fact used to own the WHOLE thing) and owns 25% of Worldspan (got it when they bought TWA): both customers of Farechase.

    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.