3 ms·

This is really a war between Robots and people. Would there be a case if someone had flipped every page of the paper catalog and entered the information into a

by fnid2 16y ago

This is really a war between Robots and people. Would there be a case if someone had flipped every page of the paper catalog and entered the information into a database? I doubt it.

jasonlotito 16y ago
Actually... the article mentioned that the scrapers also violated the T&C of the site. Without knowing the details here, it could very well be that the use of the service be limited to only people, and not robots, or other such limits (like only the person associated with a user account allowed access and sharing is not allowed). This gets even stickier since it seems like the scrapers got the accounts from a company that probably signed some form of agreement with the database company.
lena 16y ago
I don't know the laws in other countries, but where I live there is a database-law that explicitly gives the owner of a database rights. For example: you cannot simply copy the phonebook and put it on the web, it doesn't matter if you use ocr-technology or hire typists to type it all in manually.
- carussell 16y ago
  Where I live (the United States), there is case law that found that where neither the individual pieces of data nor the selection criterion contain or are products of originality (read, "require editorial control" in the selection criterion aspect), the owner of a database has no such rights. For example: you can simply copy the phonebook and put it on the Web. It doesn't matter if you hire typists who type it all in manually after you've told them "Copy this." or if you use OCR technology. The phonebook example was exactly the subject of Supreme Court case Feist v. Rural. It seems like the only way Snap-on could win this one is if they demonstrate that their selection criterion met the standards for originality, which, though incredibly low, don't permit "Mitsubishi parts" to pass for originality. Edit: This deals only with the copyright aspect of the suit. This doesn't cover the trespass and trade secrets aspects, which O'Neill might be found guilty of if there were terms and conditions they violated. But I don't know—I don't know much about business/contract law.

by fnid2 16y ago

This is really a war between Robots and people. Would there be a case if someone had flipped every page of the paper catalog and entered the information into a database? I doubt it.

jasonlotito 16y ago

Actually... the article mentioned that the scrapers also violated the T&C of the site. Without knowing the details here, it could very well be that the use of the service be limited to only people, and not robots, or other such limits (like only the person associated with a user account allowed access and sharing is not allowed). This gets even stickier since it seems like the scrapers got the accounts from a company that probably signed some form of agreement with the database company.

lena 16y ago

I don't know the laws in other countries, but where I live there is a database-law that explicitly gives the owner of a database rights. For example: you cannot simply copy the phonebook and put it on the web, it doesn't matter if you use ocr-technology or hire typists to type it all in manually.

carussell 16y ago
Where I live (the United States), there is case law that found that where neither the individual pieces of data nor the selection criterion contain or are products of originality (read, "require editorial control" in the selection criterion aspect), the owner of a database has no such rights. For example: you can simply copy the phonebook and put it on the Web. It doesn't matter if you hire typists who type it all in manually after you've told them "Copy this." or if you use OCR technology. The phonebook example was exactly the subject of Supreme Court case Feist v. Rural. It seems like the only way Snap-on could win this one is if they demonstrate that their selection criterion met the standards for originality, which, though incredibly low, don't permit "Mitsubishi parts" to pass for originality. Edit: This deals only with the copyright aspect of the suit. This doesn't cover the trespass and trade secrets aspects, which O'Neill might be found guilty of if there were terms and conditions they violated. But I don't know—I don't know much about business/contract law.