
Database builder faces web-scraping lawsuit - eplanit
http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10975&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+out-law-NewsRoundUP+%28OUT-LAW+News-RoundUP%29
======
wwortiz
I thought it was going to be something like or about this:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1243159>, but rather it seems that the
"scraping" was much more malicious and underhanded when you look at the
details such as multiple logins to avoid detection and so much load was put on
the server[s] that the website went down.

This is a hell of a lot more than just scraping a website like a search
engine.

~~~
wtn
I don't think that proves maliciousness. There's no reason to believe M.
intended to crash the web server.

------
ewams
Mitsubishi = Client || Snap-on = Original Contractor || O'Neil = New
Contractor ||

A database was made by Snap-on for Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi moved the work to
O'Neil. Snap-on did not want to give up their work [data]. A log in was
required to access the data. Mitsubishi and O'Neil discussed ways to get the
data. O'Neil tried to covertly get the data and hide what they were doing,
according to 'testimony'. O'Neil caused damage. Snap-on sued O'Neil.

I think this is a better summary than the linked site. Plus I did not have 500
paragraphs with 2 sentences per section. No information was given on the
contract terms. It is not mentioned how accounts are created to access the
data. It is also not mentioned who should or should not have access. The
method of gathering the data was not discussed at all; no mentioned of an
automated process, no mention of a script, no mention of using interns with a
Firefox plugin.

------
sireat
What is bizarre/stupid of Mitsubishi that they did not own the database in the
first place. When you hire/contract a developer, it would reasonable that
their fruits of labor transfer to the one paying the bills.

Whoever wrote up the original contract at Mitsubishi screwed up, or
alternatively Snap-on was smart/devious.

Reminds a little bit of the Skype fiasco, with eBay not buying exactly
everything...

------
tezza
The title is a little misleading IMHO. From reading the article it sounds like
the term 'scraping' has been misused.

Rather it seems like a static web catalogue was downloaded and cloned once off
using a website downloader.

.

The way we use web-scraping here on HN tends to be::

* frequently downloading

* structural changes can be as important as data changes

* often scraped on demand from a client request

------
fnid2
This is really a war between Robots and people. Would there be a case if
someone had flipped every page of the paper catalog and entered the
information into a database? I doubt it.

~~~
lena
I don't know the laws in other countries, but where I live there is a
database-law that explicitly gives the owner of a database rights. For
example: you cannot simply copy the phonebook and put it on the web, it
doesn't matter if you use ocr-technology or hire typists to type it all in
manually.

~~~
carussell
Where I live (the United States), there is case law that found that where
neither the individual pieces of data nor the selection criterion contain or
are products of originality (read, "require editorial control" in the
selection criterion aspect), the owner of a database has no such rights. For
example: you can simply copy the phonebook and put it on the Web. It doesn't
matter if you hire typists who type it all in manually after you've told them
"Copy this." or if you use OCR technology.

The phonebook example was exactly the subject of Supreme Court case Feist v.
Rural.

It seems like the only way Snap-on could win this one is if they demonstrate
that their selection criterion met the standards for originality, which,
though incredibly low, don't permit "Mitsubishi parts" to pass for
originality.

Edit: This deals only with the copyright aspect of the suit. This doesn't
cover the trespass and trade secrets aspects, which O'Neill might be found
guilty of if there were terms and conditions they violated. But I don't know—I
don't know much about business/contract law.

------
pierrefar
What did the robots.txt file say? Was that violated? Is robots.txt a legal
enough statement?

Interesting case.

~~~
jat850
As robots.txt is entirely optional (there's not even an RFC governing it),
what it says or doesn't say isn't even technically violated in any way here,
let alone legally.

(I apologize, I don't know how to do proper citations on here but
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots.txt> provides more details.)

~~~
pierrefar
But it is the convention that is widely accepted.

~~~
jat850
Yep, most services or search engines choose to respect the convention, but if
the article indicates properly, it doesn't sound like the robot in question
here was trying to be particularly kind or gentle in its work.

