4 ms·
Precedent is very much against PhantomAlert. Such data simply isn't copyrightable. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1
by shakethemonkey 11y ago
Precedent is very much against PhantomAlert. Such data simply isn't copyrightable. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), which involved fictitious entries in a telephone book.
- nieve 11y agoPrecedent for general copyright, yes, but according to other news sources and PhantomAlert comments they were in negotiations for data-sharing that fell through. The chances those weren't covered by NDAs as well as likely more stringent contractual obligations is very low, so there's a contractual element. It's very different for me to sue you over data you've scraped than for us to sign contracts covering what you're allowed to do with our data and whether you're allowed to use it at all. In my experience financial data is just about always fenced by contracts, simply trusting the guy's you've been competing to take care of you is pure incompetence.