4 ms·

Does anybody know how this pertains to data scraping? Like many coders/tinkerers, I've been frustrated that TOS'es often forbid bots from scraping data from man

Does anybody know how this pertains to data scraping? Like many coders/tinkerers, I've been frustrated that TOS'es often forbid bots from scraping data from many sites. There are lots of ways data can be better visualized or synthesized than is currently done, but terms of service make this impossible (unless you're just doing a small side project you never plan to publish). Does this mean that scraping is acceptable now, even if a site's TOS explicitly forbid it?

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
This case is explicitly about data scraping. If the site's TOS forbids scraping, but allows access, this decision says "scrape away". Note, however, that this is a Ninth Circuit decision. If you don't live within the bounds of the Ninth Circuit, this decision doesn't apply to you.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  No, it doesn't say scrape away. It says the scraping doesn't violate state computer crime statues (and the court has ruled similarly about Federal ones in the past). Oracle could still take actions other than gunning for a criminal prosecution. A simple action they could have taken was to block the scraper, the EFF post makes it looks like they didn't do this. Presumably they asked for the prosecution in order to deter other scrapers, but they could have done that AND ALSO blocked this scraper.
tzahola 9y ago
Just tell them that you’re using mturk.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Does this mean that scraping is acceptable now, even if a site's TOS explicitly forbid it? That...depends. It was a scraping case, but while the appeals court allowed the automated access that the lower court found violated various anti-hacking laws, it also let stand the copyright violation judgement for the actual use of the scraped content. So, if content is protected by copyright, you don't have a license which covers your use, and no exception to copyright protection applies, that's still going to be a problem for scraping.
- chatmasta 9y ago
  If you’re scraping from multiple sources and aggregating the data, you might be able to make a fair use case.
  - amelius 9y ago
    But if it's personal data, e.g. from LinkedIn and Facebook, then aggregating might be legally/morally unacceptable.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

This case is explicitly about data scraping. If the site's TOS forbids scraping, but allows access, this decision says "scrape away". Note, however, that this is a Ninth Circuit decision. If you don't live within the bounds of the Ninth Circuit, this decision doesn't apply to you.

adrianratnapala 9y ago
No, it doesn't say scrape away. It says the scraping doesn't violate state computer crime statues (and the court has ruled similarly about Federal ones in the past). Oracle could still take actions other than gunning for a criminal prosecution. A simple action they could have taken was to block the scraper, the EFF post makes it looks like they didn't do this. Presumably they asked for the prosecution in order to deter other scrapers, but they could have done that AND ALSO blocked this scraper.

tzahola 9y ago

Just tell them that you’re using mturk.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Does this mean that scraping is acceptable now, even if a site's TOS explicitly forbid it? That...depends. It was a scraping case, but while the appeals court allowed the automated access that the lower court found violated various anti-hacking laws, it also let stand the copyright violation judgement for the actual use of the scraped content. So, if content is protected by copyright, you don't have a license which covers your use, and no exception to copyright protection applies, that's still going to be a problem for scraping.

chatmasta 9y ago
If you’re scraping from multiple sources and aggregating the data, you might be able to make a fair use case.
- amelius 9y ago
  But if it's personal data, e.g. from LinkedIn and Facebook, then aggregating might be legally/morally unacceptable.