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."

70 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. It's a sad time by asramchusak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Legislations, counter-legislations.

    Did the web die suddenly or did it just wither away without anyone noticing?

    --
    Yes, I am a Muslim. No, I am not a Terrorist.
  2. Dude, it's their own damn fault... by Eese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you are making information available to the public, what right do you have to be angry when someone, *gasp* uses that information?

    1. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by neurostar · · 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...

      neurostar
    2. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by GlassHeart · · Score: 4, Informative
      what right do you have to be angry

      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.

    3. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Such as when I make a book available to the public and someone posts a pdf of it, in entirety? Your statement is so profoundly fallacious that I want to throttle you.

      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 design or original texts.

      It's about time that a case like this goes to SCOTUS, so that there is direct precedence for any future cases. Then again, they may end up screwing everything up by ruling for the airline. Especially if any court positions become filled by Baby Bush's nominations.

    4. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You cannot copyright figures, numbers, prices, etc.

      Remember Walmart trying to sue over the Black Friday?

    5. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 5, Informative

      Facts are not copyrightable. Airfares are facts. There was a big case between the bells and 3rd party phonebook makers where this was determined to be the case.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    6. 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.
    7. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by Spectre · · Score: 2, Informative

      True, but compilations of facts have been determined to be copyrightable (such as each individual phonebook).

      It is a weird and not entirely logical batch of case law.

      --
      "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
    8. 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?

    9. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by Samrobb · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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)

      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...

      "Your Honor, these documents were available to the public, but they were not 'public documents' as specified in section 10, paragraph 3, subparagraph 6a of Title 3 of the Maleficient Goombah code."

      [1] Is that really a word?

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    10. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by Mawbid · · Score: 5, Informative
      Is that really a word?

      Yes, and its antonym, "uncopyrightable", is the longest word in the English language without repeated letters.

      --
      Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
    11. 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.

    12. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2, Informative
      True, but compilations of facts have been determined to be copyrightable (such as each individual phonebook)

      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" doesn't count.

    13. Re:Dude, it's their own damn fault... by webmaestro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have seen many times, for instance on BestBuy.com and Amazon.com, where the manufacturer has restricted the posting of prices for their merchandise. If Amazon or BestBuy sets a price for a companies product that is below the minimum advertisible price, then they can't show it to the public. They can only tell you the price once you show intent to purchase, such as placing it in your shopping cart.

      The point is manufacturers do have control over what happens with their pricing. I'm not sure if this is entirely applicable to this case, but it is something to look at.

    14. 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.

  3. 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
  4. Legal implications? by grammaticaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fortunately, American isn't basing their case on the idea that their prices are their "intellectual property," but instead are claiming that Farechase was trespassing on their chattel. I wonder if the decision on this could effect cases involving DoS attacks?

  5. 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 antis0c · · Score: 2, Informative

      If its criminal law, which it might be under the DMCA, an employer can't force you to do it. It's a basic employment right. Just like your employer can't fire you because you refuse to dump toxic chemicals.

      Civil though, I have no idea...

      --

      ..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
    2. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by Telastyn · · Score: 5, Informative

      ianal; Court cases have held in the past that if the information is held on a public site, it is public, despite any agreement to the contrary. That information if under copyright, still is held by those restrictions (and rights).

      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 /. articles.

      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)

    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:Screenscrapers and the Law by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if it is un-ethical to you, then why does the legality matter?

      You could send an anonymous letter to your companies lawyers, boards of directors, and CEO.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. 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
    6. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by CommieLib · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like you already know everything you need to know. Now you simply need to summon the courage of your beliefs.

      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 or a successful life 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.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    7. 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.
    8. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by no+soup+for+you · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If its criminal law, which it might be under the DMCA
      Only if it's encrypted, so be sure to download the html on port 80 and not 443.
      --
      If you blog it...
    9. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by CommieLib · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope, but that's what I used to believe. The truth is that one's principles require sacrifices sometimes. What you're saying is that there are no beliefs worth sacrifices, vis a vis, wealthy people are not required to make sacrifices for their beliefs. QED.

      I think upon consideration you'll discover that's not what you believe either.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    10. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Maybe the easiest thing to do is ask your boss to detail in writing (and then sign) a directive that would implement your screen scraping work.

      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.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    11. 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 :-)

    12. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by arkanes · · Score: 2, Informative

      This comes up alot. It's because the GPL does not restrict any of your normal rights under copyright law, but rather grants you additional rights if you agree to it. You can choose to not agree to the GPL and yet still retain the use of any GPL code or program. This is not the case with your typical EULA (which is presented to you as a pre-condition of usage), or of website terms of service (which couldn't have any signifigant legal weight, since theres not even the token agreement of an EULA).

    13. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by Telastyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The GPL specifically forbids republication. Basically this is where the "if under copyright, copyright restrictions (and rights) still hold"

      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 a breach of copyright, even though the code is public.

      If the website had copyright over the public information, they could also restrict its use (except for legally defined 'fair use').

    14. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by aridhol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mostly, legality is important so I can show it to my boss. I want to convince them not to do it, not just to farm it off to someone else with different ethical guidelines.

      --
      I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
    15. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by CelloJake · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with the RIAA in that it should not be legal to redistribute copyrighted content. I do disagree on whether the medium of distribution is liable though. The USPS would be forced to inspect every package for burn't cds if this philosophy was really put into practice. -Jacob

    16. 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
    17. Re:Screenscrapers and the Law by t0ny · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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".

      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 aware you were asked to do this, and you need it in an email, etc. That way you cant get fired and used as a scapegoat.

      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, since he is not requesting your legal/ethics advice, you should pretty much do what he says. Of course, quitting is the ultimate form of protest (barring suicide), but he will probably just hire somebody else and have them do it.

      And of course, you couldnt pick a better time to leave your job! There are tons of jobs out there, hanging on trees like ripe fruit waiting to be picked.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  6. 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?)
  7. A fundamental distinction by DohDamit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a fundamental distinction between programmatically scraping someone else's site and posting it as your own and an individual drawing down the website via a browser: fair use.

    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.

    1. Re:A fundamental distinction by fgb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But are things like airfares copyrightable? I could understand it if they took the whole web page and posted it as their own, then there is definite copyright infringement. But just taking raw numbers off the page? What if a person went to the page, wrote down all the fares and then created a page using those fares. Would that still be infringement? What's the difference if a piece of software does the web surfing?

    2. Re:A fundamental distinction by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Provided fair use conditions are posted, I don't see where the scraper has a leg to stand on.

      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.

    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)

  8. It's free information, for a price. by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Regardless, Farechaser should not tell its customers one thing then turn right around and do it themselves. Especially when they stand to make money doing so. Sure, it's legal, but that doesn't make it right. Personally I think they ought to nationalize most of the airlines given the current economic situation but that's not likely given the stockholders interests and the current administration.

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
  9. Case law -- eBay v. Bidder's Edge by BenLev · · Score: 5, Informative
    I suggest you read eBay v. Bidder's Edge (Court citation: 100 F.Supp.2d 1058).

    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.

  10. Re:Consider an earlier precedent... by taustin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Er, dude, that wasn't precendent. That was what Walmart claimed. They then proceeded to back down when their victim pointed out that they'd claimed that under penalty of perjury.

    At least try to pay attention.

  11. Innovation may be hampered by PineHall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Jon Udell created a bookmarklet called LibraryLookup to take the URL of the page you are on and pull off the ISBN and check your local library for the book. It can be used at places like Amazon.com. It is a very creative idea of using different websites to create the useful application. Now one would hate to see applications like this be outlawed. Maybe the difference is that the use is personal (fair use) and not "commerical".

  12. Froogle? by rcw-work · · Score: 2

    If American Airlines wins this case, what happens to froogle.google.com?

    1. Re:Froogle? by KalvinB · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's apples and oranges. Froogle Google et all like DealTime use scraping (or whatever they do) to SUPPORT the original owners by directing traffic their way. Froogle Google is no different than any other search engine except it specializes in merchant sites.

      The people in this case are stealing information solely for their own gain.

      Ben

  13. 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?

  14. Re:Ambiguity by Dg93 · · Score: 3, Informative
    That's bullshit. Show me whan the ACLU has EVER defended the KKK even in rhetoric.

    here and here. And that's just in a couple moments spent searching on the ACLU's own site.

    --
    --Dg
  15. Scrapper Load by pdrome4robert · · Score: 5, Informative

    This goes along with the article on pricing. In industries where pricing is heavily competitive (e.g. airlines, rental cars, computer equipment) pricing information is constantly shopped. The companies can't ask each other for rates because it is banned by by anti price fixing laws. So they shop competitors' prices on information services, some even have shopbots to do the work. Sabre, the largest travel booking network in North America, which is a closed network, has blocked some paying customers due to excessive shopping. They block shopping because automated shopbots elevate CPU and network usage. These shopbots can't tell when rates have changed, so they continuously hit Sabre. Wonder how hard Farechase was hitting AA.com?

  16. Block their scraping servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At my company, a major major market site, we publish all kinds of advice, hot socks, bond rates, mutual fund performance calculations etc., etc., etc... All this is publicly avalible on the site.

    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.

  17. Screen scraping and privacy by Jerf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a connection between screen scraping and privacy arguments.

    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.

    1. Re:Screen scraping and privacy by gilroy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      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.

      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 goes and sends me something -- or even if someone merely tells someone else my address.


      On the other hand, I cannot do business with amazon.com without giving them my address. Not only is it required so that stuff can be shipped to me, but it is also required by them for, well, the marketability of it. I haven't broadcast that address; I haven't made it public; I've sent it in confidence to one party.


      If you can't see the difference, well, it strikes me you aren't looking for one.

    2. Re:Screen scraping and privacy by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Handy to say, I won't give you the full argument, so I won't bother defending my concept. I'll have to remember that in the future as a complete and utter cop out to I can't present an idea, or defend it. (This is me baiting you into a reply...:-).

      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 selling their customer list is different then me assembling lists of information off the web. I give Amazon my information, and they have a privacy policy, I expect them to follow it. I have to give my address to get something shipped to me. I don't have any other choices. Amazon is collecting private personal information from me that I have no alternative other then not do business with them. Information on the web is available to anyone, I'm not attempting to hide it, if I was it wouldn't be on the public web. If someone else posted it about my private life that they shouldn't be, I can send them a C&D letter about invading my privacy.

      The screen scrapers however, are collecting publically available information. Just like if someone decided to mail me on the basis of looking up my name in the telephone book, I can't object to that. I can object if I ask them nicely to stop sending me mail, or calling me, but it's not like can I say you can't use the phone book to lookup my number to contact me.

      Spammers who collect e-mail addresses I see as more of a nuciense, but I'm very protective of my e-mail address so it's less of a problem for me. However, my e-mail address is google'able, and you can find it out on the web. I'd be supportive of anti-spamming laws, because they are using public information to electronically do the equivilent of stalking, or repetative time wasting phone calls. Just like I can get a court order for some crazy person who follows me, I'd like to be able to get one for spammers to say look, stop it. I can't stop people who access publically available information. Now there are some things no one should be posting on the web, that'd be a personal privacy issue. However, airline tickets isn't one of them.

      I've seen a lot of companies intentionally do things, just so the only way to gather information is thru an automated system. They don't present the information in a simple easy to use form, just raise the bar of entry. Just like companies who will only give you a 100 page invoice on paper. They won't give it to you in an electronic format. However, you can lookup individual line items one at a time on the web. In a lot of cases, they are doing that to customers who own the information, but they just don't want the customer to be able to figure it out. Stuff like only telling you the prices one at a time over the phone. They do this to make it impossible for someone to verify they are being billed correctly. I've done work in this area, trust me, companies don't want you to be able to double check them to realize how badly they have screwed up. I firmly believe that technology should be usable in such cases. I some what seem this case in that vein of keeping big companies honest.

      Technology solves these problems. It empowers people to optimize problems, and save money, generate more profit, hire more people. Established corporations don't want anyone to do that, so they put up silly rules to govern how you can get the information that is yours from them. It's silly.

      Kirby

  18. Tread softly by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    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 refill the printer paper, or failing to turn off the lights on Friday night or something stupid like that...

    And definitely don't tell somebody you're interviewing with the reason you want to leave--You will almost automagically be eliminated from consideration for saying something "negative" about your former employer...Even if it is the truth.

    You have to come up with a creative quasi-lie to explain your desire to take the risk of changing jobs in a shitty economy.
    --
    Who did what now?
  19. 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.

  20. Re:EFF by sfe_software · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll never forget their position on Microsoft "Smart Tags." That's when I realized I didn't understand EFF anymore. The very idea that a web browser displaying a page "incorrectly" could possibly be copyright infringement... *sigh*

    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...

    --
    NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
  21. EFF not "involved", supports Farechase by wendy · · Score: 4, Informative

    To clarify EFF's position, we're not involved in the case at this point. We do strongly support Farechase's right to access a publicly available website and repost uncopyrightable facts gathered from it.

    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.

    --

    -- Openlaw: Fighting for fair use and the public domain

  22. Re:I am surprised at some of Slashdot's response by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This logic is BACKWARDS.

    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".

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  23. Re:EFF by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wanna see something stupid up in Canuckistan? Our post office is suing a company that makes StrongPost, claiming that the post office owns the word "Post". So much for Post cereals, Post-It Notes, etc. Now THAT's stupid

  24. I scrape AA.com too... by mhoeffner · · Score: 2, Informative
    I scrape AA.com too, but in a very different way technically and for a different reason.

    I've developed a free program called MileTracker that consolidates users' frequent flier accounts. One of the accounts that I pull information from is of course at AA.com. I haven't received any complaints yet, but there are several reasons why I can think of that:

    • I do the scraping from the client. There is no central server involved at any point.
    • There are only a few hundred users at this point, each generating at most 2-3 requests a day. More likely they're only generating 1 request every few days.
    • I've been very careful to simulate an actual human user using a Web browser. There are some steps that I skip for performance reasons (such as downloading images which could be cached anyway), but I make sure to handle all cookies, redirects, Javascript, etc. I also throw in some delays and randomization.
    Someone looking through logs would probably have a lot of trouble telling the difference between a real user and my "ghost" user.

    The application really isn't harmful to AA. In fact, there's a good chance that I actually increase real traffic to AA.com amongst their loyal customers. When there is a change in a user's frequent flier account balance, I provide an easy way for them to actually login to AA.com so that they can view the details. If AA complains, I'd probably obey since I have more to lose than I do to gain. It's AA's customers that use MileTracker that would suffer.

  25. Similar "illegality" by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Our company gave up its internal call center ops. Another company bought it lock, stock, and server.
    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. Including all the data. They want to get up and running as soona s possible."
    "WHAT??? We can't give out all that personal information! What about all the people who did NOT join the new company?"

    He pushed, I pushed back.

    "OK...I'll do it, on one condition. A signed letter (not an email) from:
    The head of HR
    The CEO
    The COO
    The head of our law firm
    and you (the IT VP)
    Otherwise, I'll send them a sanitized copy. No personal data whatsoever."

    After much discussion, they backed down.

    I went over and installed the sanitized program.
    Bottom line...if you feel it is illegal/immoral, stand up and be counted. If you're wrong, you'll find out soon enough. They you do whatever they want.
    If you're right, the powers that be will not stick their neck out that far.

    Protect yourself. Otherwise, when the shit hits the fan, you will be one of the scapegoats.

  26. Re:Nationalization of airlines by 71thumper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some things to remember about pilot salaries:

    1) They can only work until age 60. FAA rule.

    2) They typically spend 8-10 years before making $75,000/year. My buddy is 32 years old, has flown for a 'regional' since 1997, and is still only making $50,000/year. And with the downturn since 9/11, it could easily be 7-10 years before he moves up the ladder (and he'll have to take a pay cut when moving to a 'major' airline the first few years).

    3) Any number of health conditions can end your career without warning, or just leave you unpaid. Have a heart attack at 55? Forget it, you're done.

    4) These guys have to be tested in a full-motion simulator every 6 months. Blow more something here, you could find yourself out of a job.

    5) No ability to "laterally" change jobs. If you fly for an airline (such as Braniff) and have 15 years seniority and are a 747 captain, and Braniff goes out of business, you're new job will have you sitting in the co-pilots seat of a DC-9 or 737, making 36 grand a year again.

    6) Oh yeah, you're in charge of the lives of hundreds of people each day. Your mistakes don't cause downtime, they cause DEATH.

    Now tell me again why pilots are overpaid?

    Steve

  27. 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.

  28. You are wrong by m4g02 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it's not "stealing". It wouldn't even be "stealing" if this information was worthy of copyright. HOWEVER, the fact remains that this information is NOT worthy of copright protection.

    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 can order by phone, but if a fellow comes every day and takes a menu of mine just to copy the precies to his own menu I would never give one to him again, is my damn right after all since are my menus I printed in the paper i bought with the ink i bought, same with bandwidth.

    --
    Sigs are for morons... Wait a minute...
  29. 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.

  30. Injunctions and Texas Law by jdedman4 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Well, this will almost certainly be appealled, and since the lawsuit arose in a Tarrant County, Texas, district court, it will be reviewed by the Fort Worth Court of Appeals. Although litigants are usually prohibited from appealling until a final judgment has been reached in a lawsuit, Texas law specifically grants them the right to immediately appeal an order which "grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction." Just so you know, an appellate court considers the following when reviewing an order on a temporary injunction:
    Applicable Law and Standard of Review To be entitled to a temporary injunction a plaintiff must show: (1) a viable cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right to recovery; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex.1993) (per curiam). The only question before the trial court is whether the applicant is entitled to preservation of the status quo pending trial on the merits. Id. at 58. In an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, our review is confined to the validity of that order. See id. The decision to grant or deny the temporary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the trial court; we will not disturb that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. This Court may neither substitute its judgment for that of the trial court nor consider the merits of the lawsuit. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 24 S.W.3d 570, 576 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no pet.). Rather, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's order, indulging every reasonable inference in its favor, and determine whether the order was so arbitrary as to exceed the bounds of reasonable discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion exists when the court misapplies the law to established facts or when it concludes that the applicant has demonstrated a probable injury or a probable right to recovery and the conclusion is not reasonably supported by evidence. Rugen v. Interactive Bus. Sys., Inc., 864 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no writ).
    However, I'll note that the litigants must now, pending appeal and all of that, go to trial and put on a case for a permanent injunction. trial court may grant a temporary writ of injunction to preserve the status quo pending trial even though the applicant's prayer does not include a claim for equitable relief. Basically, this is so far from over.