Talk:Web scraping/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:22, 2 December 2018

Latest revision as of 14:22, 2 December 2018

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Line 229:

Also, I demand a citation for the "courts have held" claim. I find it unlikely, though not entirely impossible. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Quotemstr|Quotemstr]] ([[User talk:Quotemstr#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Quotemstr|contribs]]) 03:26, July 27, 2007 (UTC)</small>

{{Clear}}

== legal issues section reworked ==

The legal issues section made several bold and unsourced claims that could be interpreted as scare-mongering. Can someone check out the reworked section? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Quotemstr|Quotemstr]] ([[User talk:Quotemstr|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Quotemstr|contribs]]){{#if:00:06:14, August 20, 2007 (UTC)|&#32;00:06:14, August 20, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

{{Clear}}

== Legal issues again ==

I'm not starting an edit war, I swear. :-)

First of all, I cleaned up and normalized the references a bit, and made some minor phrasing changes that shouldn't be controversial.

I removed the section about legal action occurring out of the public eye. That information isn't only unsourced: it's unverifiable.

The court cases cited in the article hardly count as defeats. In the Ticketmaster case, the court held that the particular instance of scraping mentioned was not a trespass. In the other cases listed, the claim was for a preliminary injunction only. As I understand it, a preliminary injunction does not set case law, and should not be considered with the same weight as a final decision.

As for the aggregate damage section -- is there a specific source? Maybe I just missed it.

I don't see how the DMCA is relevant here either; the cases mentioned in the previous version seem to be covered by normal copyright law. A scraper doesn't necessarily have to circumvent any access restrictions in place on a site, considering that one can act like just a browser. Also, doesn't the DMCA specifically allow circumvention for interoperability? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Quotemstr|Quotemstr]] ([[User talk:Quotemstr|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Quotemstr|contribs]]) 02:30, August 21, 2007 (UTC)