Content deleted Content added
OneClickArchiver adding legal issues |
|||
Line 218:
See [[Talk:Screen_scraping#Merge_web_scraping_into_screen_scraping]] for discussion <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] ([[User talk:DragonHawk#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DragonHawk|contribs]]) 20:46, July 1, 2006 (UTC)</small>
{{Clear}}
== legal issues ==
I don't this article's discussion of the legalities of scraping is correct, and I'm disputing its neutrality. The DMCA prohibits technical measures to bypass an effective access control measure. A robot acting like a browser bypasses no effective measures in doing so, and thereby doesn't fall afoul of the DMCA. Also, redistributing copyrighted material is illegal regardless of whether the DMCA is invoked.
Furthermore, not all material gotten through screen-scraping is copyrighted. Consider the case of a site that displayed film showtimes. The showtimes themselves are not copyrighted any more than the numbers in a phone book are, and therefore can be used by whoever scrapes them without fear of copyright infringement. Wholesale copying of content is illegal, yes, but it's not an issue specific to "web scraping."
Also, performing an action that violates a site's terms of use is not illegal. It merely violates the terms of use, not any law. It's not even a breach of contract, since the user doesn't even have to read, much less agree to the terms to use the site.
Also, I demand a citation for the "courts have held" claim. I find it unlikely, though not entirely impossible. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— 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>
| |||