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."
If you are making information available to the public, what right do you have to be angry when someone, *gasp* uses that information?
The article also fails to mention that Farechaser was sentenced to death by lethal injection in the same decision...
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Repeal the DMCA!
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
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.