6 ms·

> What are they suing them for? Under what law or legal principle? The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) allows for civil cases. The law prohibits accessing

> What are they suing them for? Under what law or legal principle? The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) allows for civil cases. The law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization. This isn't a case of users knowingly using a tool to scrape data for their own use, the users installing the extension are, at most, mules, for the extension makers. Alternately, maybe copyright infringement. Some of the data are considered facts, that are not copyrightable (even in aggregate, in the U.S.) but at minimum, the actual content of ads scraped is copyrightable. There might be a question of whether Facebook has standing to sue over infringement of ads for other businesses but their ToS may cover some non-exclusive copyright to shared

stanrivers 6y ago
How does the idea that while the user of the extension might agree, the friend group that is sharing the information that is being scraped has not consented? That seems to be an important difference, no?
- extra88 6y ago
  Yes, there's harm to Facebook, the other users whose data is scraped, and probably to organizations advertising on Facebook. The masses of users and organizations are unlikely to be aware this is going on or to be able to organize and sue the extension makers. These extensions are made by shitty companies using shitty practices to make money. If current legal frameworks aren't well suited to deal with it, that doesn't make them any less shitty.
  - monadic2 6y ago
    Sure, but doesn't the TOS harm the user by restricting their access to their own data? Facebook might have a case but you can't possibly paint them as a victim here.
    - extra88 6y ago
      The issue not so much the extensions scraping the individual user's own data (or data about them) but scraping data about advertisers and about other users. Facebook is harmed through resource consumption by the scraping, the infringement of any copyrights they hold on what's scraped, and potentially harmed in their relationship with their advertising customers and their users. How bad Facebook's own practices are is irrelevant to the issue of what these extension makers have done. Dirtbags have rights too.
      - hyperdimension 6y ago
        With as little respect I have for Facebook, and how reluctant I'd even be to defend them, your last sentence, "Dirtbags have rights too." is an attitude I think we all should stand to live up to these days.
      - monadic2 6y ago
        I agree with your last statement that dirtbags deserve rights too; however, companies should not have rights on par with civilian rights at all. Hell, I'd like to write up a TOS they implicitly sign by taking on my business. ...while we're on the subject of normativity, anyway! :)
  - abeyer 6y ago
    These extensions are made by shitty companies using shitty practices to make money by "stealing" data from a shitty company with shitty practices to make money. You're just a pawn sitting in the middle while the parties to this fight over who gets to exploit you most effectively. The only positive outcome here would be if the courts hugely overstepped their mandate and told everyone involved that this data shouldn't be available at all, you have to destroy it now.
- ummonk 6y ago
  Right. It's as if it is essentially a hacking tool, since the user of the extension would seemingly be violating the FB terms of service.
- wolco2 6y ago
  The users of the extension have access granted to those friend groups by the owners of those groups. Through that access things get saved. Consent was given...
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    Consent, perhaps, but not a license for using the data.
    - Reelin 6y ago
      Which if you think it through means that the friends might have legal standing to sue the user of the extension. Not to sue Facebook or the extension author and definitely not for Facebook to sue the extension author.
johnnyfaehell 6y ago
>This isn't a case of users knowingly using a tool to scrape data for their own use, the users installing the extension are, at most, mules, for the extension makers. I feel it's reasonable for the average person to figure that a plugin that pays them for using Facebook and Twitter is paying for the data generated from those sessions. There is already a case with LinkedIn where courts are allowing data scraping even though LinkedIn disallows it and forced LinkedIn to stop blocking it. I feel like this is a case Facebook should lose. Facebook wants complete ownership of the data from Facebook for marketing purposes because obviously if they're the only ones that have the data they have a monopoly. But preventing others from gathering competing data seems to be a breach of Antitrust. And Facebook execs will openly admit this is what they're doing. They've shut down multiple influencer related companies who completely backed down from a cease and desist from Facebook. And they're refusing to allow anyone to grant influencer agencies access to their data. This is Facebook telling people who they can give their data to. As well as Facebook saying companies can't scrape public information and then sell the statistics. And statistics can't be copyrighted.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  I feel it's reasonable for the average person to figure that a plugin that pays them for using Facebook and Twitter is paying for the data generated from those sessions. I suspect that, to date, you've mostly met above-average people. The average person, in my experience, has no such expectation or understanding. All they know is "free money!"
  - johnnyfaehell 6y ago
    Luckily, I believe the legal standard may be a reasonable person would understood it. :)
- henryfjordan 6y ago
  > courts are allowing data scraping even though LinkedIn disallows it and forced LinkedIn to stop blocking it Courts only said "If your server responds to an unauthenticated GET request, that's on you". Linkedin is free to stop providing that data or move it behind a login wall, they just don't want to because it helps them with SEO. Contrast that with these plugins that are absolutely accessing data behind the user's login. Also with regards to the antitrust assertions you make, Facebook is absolutely not required to share their data with anyone. People give their data to FB, FB can do what they want with it (as long as it's within the ToS). Facebook can't stop me from also giving my data to someone else outside the platform, but they do not have to facilitate that process in any way.
darepublic 6y ago
I feel like users should be having automated tools to scrape for their own use. Once these kind of sophisticated browser automation tools come out eventually Google and ilk will be putting out all stops to prevent browser automation and verify who is using the browser, their real identity and what they are allowed to see (and not see)
- extra88 6y ago
  > users should be having automated tools to scrape for their own use. I agree but that's not happening in this case.
tzs 6y ago
> Alternately, maybe copyright infringement. Some of the data are considered facts, that are not copyrightable (even in aggregate, in the U.S.). Facts aren't copyrightable, but a collection of facts might be if there was sufficient creativity involved in the selection and arrangement of the facts. The big case on this was Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), where a company copying a telephone book was found not to be if infringing because the phone book was not be copyrighted. The Court ruled that there is a constitutional requirement for at least some minimal degree of creativity in a work for it to be copyrighted. In the case of a phone book, neither the selection criteria (everyone in this region who has a phone) nor the arrangement (alphabetical order by name). The Court also noted that if there is sufficient creativity in the selection or arrangement to support copyright, the copyright would be on that selection and arrangement. The underlying facts would still be uncopyrightable. In the case of the phone book, for example, that would mean that even if Rural had used a creative arrangement and could copyright that, Feist could still take all the names and phone numbers and produce its alphabetical phone book from them. Applying this to Facebook, it may be that they do have copyright in the selection and arrangement of facts that were scraped. Whether or not the scraper is infringing would hinge on what they did with those facts.
- lmkg 6y ago
  The case you mention is one-half of the picture, and I feel it's important to mention the other half. The White Pages are not copyright-able, which is what your case describes. But the Yellow Pages are copyright-able (somewhat). This is because grouping the businesses into categories clears the bar of "minimal degree of creativity" that you mention. However, the individual listings are still not subject to copyright so there's no problem with taking them and re-arranging them.
- extra88 6y ago
  > Whether or not the scraper is infringing would hinge on what they did with those facts. I don't think the scraping companies could mount a successful fair use defense so they'd definitely be found to be infringing and could be ordered by a court to stop. What damages they might pay would depend on what they did with the data.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 6y ago
I'm not sure that FB has standing in this case.
- extra88 6y ago
  I bet they do. Even if most of what is scraped is more properly considered as belonging to their users and customers, I'm sure at least some of what's scraped truly belongs to Facebook. Even if the specific act of letting the extension run is the fault of each user and presumably means they each violated Facebook's ToS, they can probably sue the extension makers for bribing the users to violate the ToS.
  - Reelin 6y ago
    > sue the extension makers for bribing the users to violate the ToS That's an interesting thought. A ToS is just a (rather questionable, in many cases) contract. Can party A sue party C for bribing party B to violate a contract between A and B? Genuine question - I honestly don't know, but my guess is no.
    - ummonk 6y ago
      That falls under tortious interference.

stanrivers 6y ago

How does the idea that while the user of the extension might agree, the friend group that is sharing the information that is being scraped has not consented? That seems to be an important difference, no?

extra88 6y ago
Yes, there's harm to Facebook, the other users whose data is scraped, and probably to organizations advertising on Facebook. The masses of users and organizations are unlikely to be aware this is going on or to be able to organize and sue the extension makers. These extensions are made by shitty companies using shitty practices to make money. If current legal frameworks aren't well suited to deal with it, that doesn't make them any less shitty.
- monadic2 6y ago
  Sure, but doesn't the TOS harm the user by restricting their access to their own data? Facebook might have a case but you can't possibly paint them as a victim here.
  - extra88 6y ago
    The issue not so much the extensions scraping the individual user's own data (or data about them) but scraping data about advertisers and about other users. Facebook is harmed through resource consumption by the scraping, the infringement of any copyrights they hold on what's scraped, and potentially harmed in their relationship with their advertising customers and their users. How bad Facebook's own practices are is irrelevant to the issue of what these extension makers have done. Dirtbags have rights too.
    - hyperdimension 6y ago
      With as little respect I have for Facebook, and how reluctant I'd even be to defend them, your last sentence, "Dirtbags have rights too." is an attitude I think we all should stand to live up to these days.
    - monadic2 6y ago
      I agree with your last statement that dirtbags deserve rights too; however, companies should not have rights on par with civilian rights at all. Hell, I'd like to write up a TOS they implicitly sign by taking on my business. ...while we're on the subject of normativity, anyway! :)
- abeyer 6y ago
  These extensions are made by shitty companies using shitty practices to make money by "stealing" data from a shitty company with shitty practices to make money. You're just a pawn sitting in the middle while the parties to this fight over who gets to exploit you most effectively. The only positive outcome here would be if the courts hugely overstepped their mandate and told everyone involved that this data shouldn't be available at all, you have to destroy it now.
ummonk 6y ago
Right. It's as if it is essentially a hacking tool, since the user of the extension would seemingly be violating the FB terms of service.
wolco2 6y ago
The users of the extension have access granted to those friend groups by the owners of those groups. Through that access things get saved. Consent was given...
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Consent, perhaps, but not a license for using the data.
  - Reelin 6y ago
    Which if you think it through means that the friends might have legal standing to sue the user of the extension. Not to sue Facebook or the extension author and definitely not for Facebook to sue the extension author.

johnnyfaehell 6y ago

>This isn't a case of users knowingly using a tool to scrape data for their own use, the users installing the extension are, at most, mules, for the extension makers. I feel it's reasonable for the average person to figure that a plugin that pays them for using Facebook and Twitter is paying for the data generated from those sessions. There is already a case with LinkedIn where courts are allowing data scraping even though LinkedIn disallows it and forced LinkedIn to stop blocking it. I feel like this is a case Facebook should lose. Facebook wants complete ownership of the data from Facebook for marketing purposes because obviously if they're the only ones that have the data they have a monopoly. But preventing others from gathering competing data seems to be a breach of Antitrust. And Facebook execs will openly admit this is what they're doing. They've shut down multiple influencer related companies who completely backed down from a cease and desist from Facebook. And they're refusing to allow anyone to grant influencer agencies access to their data. This is Facebook telling people who they can give their data to. As well as Facebook saying companies can't scrape public information and then sell the statistics. And statistics can't be copyrighted.

reaperducer 6y ago
I feel it's reasonable for the average person to figure that a plugin that pays them for using Facebook and Twitter is paying for the data generated from those sessions. I suspect that, to date, you've mostly met above-average people. The average person, in my experience, has no such expectation or understanding. All they know is "free money!"
- johnnyfaehell 6y ago
  Luckily, I believe the legal standard may be a reasonable person would understood it. :)
henryfjordan 6y ago
> courts are allowing data scraping even though LinkedIn disallows it and forced LinkedIn to stop blocking it Courts only said "If your server responds to an unauthenticated GET request, that's on you". Linkedin is free to stop providing that data or move it behind a login wall, they just don't want to because it helps them with SEO. Contrast that with these plugins that are absolutely accessing data behind the user's login. Also with regards to the antitrust assertions you make, Facebook is absolutely not required to share their data with anyone. People give their data to FB, FB can do what they want with it (as long as it's within the ToS). Facebook can't stop me from also giving my data to someone else outside the platform, but they do not have to facilitate that process in any way.

darepublic 6y ago

I feel like users should be having automated tools to scrape for their own use. Once these kind of sophisticated browser automation tools come out eventually Google and ilk will be putting out all stops to prevent browser automation and verify who is using the browser, their real identity and what they are allowed to see (and not see)

extra88 6y ago
> users should be having automated tools to scrape for their own use. I agree but that's not happening in this case.

tzs 6y ago

> Alternately, maybe copyright infringement. Some of the data are considered facts, that are not copyrightable (even in aggregate, in the U.S.). Facts aren't copyrightable, but a collection of facts might be if there was sufficient creativity involved in the selection and arrangement of the facts. The big case on this was Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), where a company copying a telephone book was found not to be if infringing because the phone book was not be copyrighted. The Court ruled that there is a constitutional requirement for at least some minimal degree of creativity in a work for it to be copyrighted. In the case of a phone book, neither the selection criteria (everyone in this region who has a phone) nor the arrangement (alphabetical order by name). The Court also noted that if there is sufficient creativity in the selection or arrangement to support copyright, the copyright would be on that selection and arrangement. The underlying facts would still be uncopyrightable. In the case of the phone book, for example, that would mean that even if Rural had used a creative arrangement and could copyright that, Feist could still take all the names and phone numbers and produce its alphabetical phone book from them. Applying this to Facebook, it may be that they do have copyright in the selection and arrangement of facts that were scraped. Whether or not the scraper is infringing would hinge on what they did with those facts.

lmkg 6y ago
The case you mention is one-half of the picture, and I feel it's important to mention the other half. The White Pages are not copyright-able, which is what your case describes. But the Yellow Pages are copyright-able (somewhat). This is because grouping the businesses into categories clears the bar of "minimal degree of creativity" that you mention. However, the individual listings are still not subject to copyright so there's no problem with taking them and re-arranging them.
extra88 6y ago
> Whether or not the scraper is infringing would hinge on what they did with those facts. I don't think the scraping companies could mount a successful fair use defense so they'd definitely be found to be infringing and could be ordered by a court to stop. What damages they might pay would depend on what they did with the data.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 6y ago

I'm not sure that FB has standing in this case.

extra88 6y ago
I bet they do. Even if most of what is scraped is more properly considered as belonging to their users and customers, I'm sure at least some of what's scraped truly belongs to Facebook. Even if the specific act of letting the extension run is the fault of each user and presumably means they each violated Facebook's ToS, they can probably sue the extension makers for bribing the users to violate the ToS.
- Reelin 6y ago
  > sue the extension makers for bribing the users to violate the ToS That's an interesting thought. A ToS is just a (rather questionable, in many cases) contract. Can party A sue party C for bribing party B to violate a contract between A and B? Genuine question - I honestly don't know, but my guess is no.
  - ummonk 6y ago
    That falls under tortious interference.