Scraping data from websites is not hacking or a crime, rules Appeals Court in US
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
Breaking news: Sanity prevails.
Are you sure? Looking at what politicians are doing or trying to do in many countries regarding Net and Data... :doh: :sigh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
Breaking news: Sanity prevails.
Are you sure? Looking at what politicians are doing or trying to do in many countries regarding Net and Data... :doh: :sigh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
I'd rather cheer for one tiny sane step and ignore all the negative :)
TTFN - Kent
-
I'd rather cheer for one tiny sane step and ignore all the negative :)
TTFN - Kent
I like your optimism... :thumbsup: Be careful, some people could confuse it with naivety :rolleyes: ;P :-D
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
I'd rather cheer for one tiny sane step and ignore all the negative :)
TTFN - Kent
Otherwise, couldn't just looking at a web page be considered data scraping? My eyes took information off the screen and into my brain. If you display it in public, I'm thinking it's fair game. Unless of course, you copyright every single web page.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
Sanity prevails.
And on the Left Coast, too! :wtf:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Otherwise, couldn't just looking at a web page be considered data scraping? My eyes took information off the screen and into my brain. If you display it in public, I'm thinking it's fair game. Unless of course, you copyright every single web page.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
1. I think that the issue is one of quantity. There is no way that your Mk. 1 brain + eyeballs can reliably "scrape" a significant amount of data from a site like LinkedIn. At least, not enough for you to open a competing service. 2. If you look at the tiny print at the bottom of many Internet pages, you will find a copyright.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
Sanity prevails.
And on the Left Coast, too! :wtf:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
1. I think that the issue is one of quantity. There is no way that your Mk. 1 brain + eyeballs can reliably "scrape" a significant amount of data from a site like LinkedIn. At least, not enough for you to open a competing service. 2. If you look at the tiny print at the bottom of many Internet pages, you will find a copyright.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
#1 would preclude the use of technology to add value to any legal activity. #2 would be a way to prevent it, but the question is whether the contents can be protected by copyright, which usually covers an original work. I doubt that a LinkedIn profile, for example, qualifies. Probably the easiest way to do this is to only display the data to logged in accounts. And when opening an account, to have the user agreement include a prohibition on scraping.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
#1 would preclude the use of technology to add value to any legal activity. #2 would be a way to prevent it, but the question is whether the contents can be protected by copyright, which usually covers an original work. I doubt that a LinkedIn profile, for example, qualifies. Probably the easiest way to do this is to only display the data to logged in accounts. And when opening an account, to have the user agreement include a prohibition on scraping.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.Greg Utas wrote:
Probably the easiest way to do this is to only display the data to logged in accounts.
As I understand it, part of the problem is that LinkedIn wanted to have their cake and eat it - both be indexable by Google, and disallow "scraping". Google will not index data behind paywalls, password protection, etc.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
Breaking news: Sanity prevails.
Disagree. Scraping not being a crime was the right call, but keeping the injunction saying MS isn't allowed to attempt to block it insane.
The ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit drew a distinction between data that is password-protected and data that is publicly available. That means hiQ Labs—a data analytics company that uses automated technology to scrape information from public LinkedIn profiles—can continue accessing LinkedIn data, a three-judge panel at the appeals court ruled:
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
Breaking news: Sanity prevails.
Disagree. Scraping not being a crime was the right call, but keeping the injunction saying MS isn't allowed to attempt to block it insane.
The ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit drew a distinction between data that is password-protected and data that is publicly available. That means hiQ Labs—a data analytics company that uses automated technology to scrape information from public LinkedIn profiles—can continue accessing LinkedIn data, a three-judge panel at the appeals court ruled:
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius
"Disagree. Scraping not being a crime was the right call, but keeping the injunction saying MS isn't allowed to attempt to block it insane." Yes, IMHO I think it's a gray way (not black, but not white too), and sources can allow/deny scraping...
