On: Top 50,000 paying Adsense keywords (purchased from a shady looking website)

[btmorex]

Facts can't be copyrighted. There's no problem with redistributing the data.

[pbhjpbhj → btmorex]

FWIW in the UK (and Europe I think) there are database rights too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_rights

Where copyright is termed so as to protect a unique arrangement of data then an ordered listing would appear to be protected.

[shabda → btmorex]

Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

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.

[davidu → shabda]

Enraged? Your reaction doesn't fit the crime, as is so often the case with copyright.

[muerdeme → shabda]

Expression/structure can be copyrighted, but that's also not the whole story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Tel...

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.

[hxa7241 → shabda]

It is ill-regard of the system, not disregard of the work.