There was no guidance whatsoever on the website I bought it from as to whether or not I could or couldn't redistribute. I agreed to nothing, I didn't click "next" on any licensing terms. The site I got if from was really pretty sketchy. The site was only 3 or 4 pages. A description of the product, a price list, a "buy now" page and a download page. I clicked the buy now button, paid $50 and downloaded a CSV. No license, no agreements. Nothing.
Also, it was a March '09 that I did this, not March '10. Sorry about that.
I'm really not trying to be shady at all with this, and I really had no idea that people would be uncomfortable with something like this or think it's wrong.
If people have serious moral qualms about this being here, I'm happy to take it down. I just thought it was an interesting hack so I thought I'd share it.
By the Berne convention, everything is copywritten on creation. And, to the best of my knowledge, the default is that you can't distribute a copywritten work unless you have an explicit license to do so.
For example, I can walk into a book store and buy Harry Potter for cash, without signing a license agreement. But, that doesn't mean I can redistribute its contents.
You are usually allowed to resell what you bought under the first sale doctrine (but not to sell copies of it).
I think there is an exception for "facts," although it may only apply to individual facts, not a collectioon of them. Any one here know more about this?
I'm not a lawyer, but per Feist v. Rural, facts cannot be copyrighted in the United States. Collections of facts may be eligible for copyright, but it requires authorship, and hinges on the creativity of presentation (the author must select which facts to include, how to present them, etc.) but the facts within the collection are not entitled to copyright protection. If this collection was generated automatically by accessing the Google API, it would probably not qualify for copyright protection based on a lack of creativity in its creation.
This is definitely a copyright violation, and I am shocked and enraged that this was voted so highly on HN and not flagged.
[Edits]
1. The standard "Recipes and collection of recipes" argument. This is a collection of recipes.
2. I am not shocked that there is a copyright violation. I am shocked that such an egregious violation has been voted so highly on HN. We are all digital workers on HN, and such disregard for digital work is (still) shocking.
If this document merely lists the keywords in ascending/descending order of popularity, it is unlikely that the author's expression is creative enough to warrant copyright.
