4 ms·

Phonebooks can't be copyrighted, and databases can't be copyrighted (exactly) but if their terms of service state that usage is restricted, and they're the kind

by Vivtek 16y ago

Phonebooks can't be copyrighted, and databases can't be copyrighted (exactly) but if their terms of service state that usage is restricted, and they're the kind of company I would expect them to be, you can expect a lawyergram as soon as they find out. Unless your pockets are deep, this will be a Bad Thing. Unfortunately, the exact same thing applies to scraping their site for that data. If you scrape somebody else's site generated from a paid use of that database, then ... maybe. Maybe. It's an awful risk. It would be better if you could figure out a way to scrape other publicly available data sources - even using that database as a guide. Don't get me wrong; there are really three questions here: the moral, the legal, and the practical. Morally, I consider scraping a site to be OK because it's really available to the public; just grabbing the database from a site that says, "don't do this" - not so much. Practically, I just went over that - it's a risk. Legally? I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that the legality is more or less cognate with my moral feelings above - but a lawyer might be able to tell you. If I were trying out an idea, though, which was your original question, I'd download the damn database and get it running. Then I'd try to find a more plausible data source, but that is a task that could be assigned a couple of months and be somewhat lower priority.

pedalpete 16y ago
Actually my understanding is that your first sentence is a fallacy. Each individual entry in a phonebook cannot be copyrighted, as that is public information. However, the collection as a whole can have a copyright. It's like not being able to copyright a music note, but being able to copyright how those pieces of information (notes) are put together into a song.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  Except you can't copyright a musical scale, one note sequentially after the other. But you can copyright a phonebook, one name and number sequentially after another? My conclusion is much the same as Vivtek's, although heck if I understand how information that is public very widespread can somehow become special because it is in a text file made by somebody else. I mean we're literally talking about an alphabetical list of names in a text file that contains public information available in hundreds or thousands of various places. But as my HN friend pointed out, databases can be marked, and if you lift them it's very possible to get the nasty gram.
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    Because it's on a Website that may impose terms of service in a defensible way. And much more saliently, because it is provided by people with more money than you. (Probably.)
    - coderdude 16y ago
      I don't get this. I hear it all the time, but how does simply having more money mean that they will win? Is there an assumption that they will try to litigate until the end of time, thus forcing you to pay for a lawyer that whole time?
      - Vivtek 16y ago
        Yeah. Basically, that's it. They don't even have to litigate until the end of time - just until you run out of money, and unless you're made of it, that won't be all that long. Meanwhile, while you're defending yourself, you're not running your business, or being a parent, or really anything. Maybe you'll settle out of court rather than go through that - but the key is, they don't really care. I sometimes think I should go to law school in order to figure out a way to get rich breaking that system.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  The Copyright Act specifically applies to "original works of authorship", and in 1991 the Supreme Court decided that phonebooks specifically are not original works of authorship, although individual design elements in the book itself may be. http://www.ivanhoffman.com/database.html http://www.ivanhoffman.com/database.html is a good overview. However, there is what's called a "compilation copyright", which is covered rather nicely at http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html - the theory there is that the selection of data is original authorship. This is still based on the same Supreme Court case (Feist), where the Court stated that if the underlying data (phone numbers and names) is uncopyrightable (you can't copyright facts), then if that data is "selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship" the database may be copyrighted. But the basic point of Feist is that phonebooks in particular are not subject to copyright. That's why I led off with that example, and it took me one Google search (on "database copyright", and these links were #3 and #4) to confirm my vague memory. I'd actually say at this point that the database in the original post is probably not copyrightable. Which is all fine and good, because it won't stop a company from suing you, and may the richest man win. So it changes nothing from the practical standpoint - copyrightable or not, the original poster would be better off finding independent sources of data.
  - TeHCrAzY 16y ago
    Similar, In Australia, phone books were also recently ruled (I'm not a legal person, a judge made a ruling in a case I think) to be not covered by copyright.

by Vivtek 16y ago

pedalpete 16y ago

Actually my understanding is that your first sentence is a fallacy. Each individual entry in a phonebook cannot be copyrighted, as that is public information. However, the collection as a whole can have a copyright. It's like not being able to copyright a music note, but being able to copyright how those pieces of information (notes) are put together into a song.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Except you can't copyright a musical scale, one note sequentially after the other. But you can copyright a phonebook, one name and number sequentially after another? My conclusion is much the same as Vivtek's, although heck if I understand how information that is public very widespread can somehow become special because it is in a text file made by somebody else. I mean we're literally talking about an alphabetical list of names in a text file that contains public information available in hundreds or thousands of various places. But as my HN friend pointed out, databases can be marked, and if you lift them it's very possible to get the nasty gram.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Because it's on a Website that may impose terms of service in a defensible way. And much more saliently, because it is provided by people with more money than you. (Probably.)
  - coderdude 16y ago
    I don't get this. I hear it all the time, but how does simply having more money mean that they will win? Is there an assumption that they will try to litigate until the end of time, thus forcing you to pay for a lawyer that whole time?
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      Yeah. Basically, that's it. They don't even have to litigate until the end of time - just until you run out of money, and unless you're made of it, that won't be all that long. Meanwhile, while you're defending yourself, you're not running your business, or being a parent, or really anything. Maybe you'll settle out of court rather than go through that - but the key is, they don't really care. I sometimes think I should go to law school in order to figure out a way to get rich breaking that system.
Vivtek 16y ago
The Copyright Act specifically applies to "original works of authorship", and in 1991 the Supreme Court decided that phonebooks specifically are not original works of authorship, although individual design elements in the book itself may be. http://www.ivanhoffman.com/database.html http://www.ivanhoffman.com/database.html is a good overview. However, there is what's called a "compilation copyright", which is covered rather nicely at http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html - the theory there is that the selection of data is original authorship. This is still based on the same Supreme Court case (Feist), where the Court stated that if the underlying data (phone numbers and names) is uncopyrightable (you can't copyright facts), then if that data is "selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship" the database may be copyrighted. But the basic point of Feist is that phonebooks in particular are not subject to copyright. That's why I led off with that example, and it took me one Google search (on "database copyright", and these links were #3 and #4) to confirm my vague memory. I'd actually say at this point that the database in the original post is probably not copyrightable. Which is all fine and good, because it won't stop a company from suing you, and may the richest man win. So it changes nothing from the practical standpoint - copyrightable or not, the original poster would be better off finding independent sources of data.
- TeHCrAzY 16y ago
  Similar, In Australia, phone books were also recently ruled (I'm not a legal person, a judge made a ruling in a case I think) to be not covered by copyright.