> You damn right I do. I own, develop, and maintain the entire system that enabled the body of works to exist in the first place.
I don’t think that meets the bar. Running a website is absolutely not equivalent to the collective effort people put in to populate that website with the information that actually gives the overall artifact its value. There is a large history of outrage when similar information repository websites with user-generated content violate expectations of openness. Nevermind the fact that the actual information itself isn’t even private or proprietary, just obscure and distributed.
> Do you think that you have a claim on ownership of the data because you drove by, saw what you liked, and decided that now you'll just rip the baton out of my hand?
I wouldn’t claim ownership nor want to, when I scrape stuff I usually just want information in a different format. I’m confused as to how you think you can even “own” data to begin with. Suppose that your users uploaded songs instead of RF info, do you believe you own their music solely because they chose to share it on your site? Do you think your users would believe that?
I’m confused as to how you think you can even “own” data to begin with.
It's actually very simple. If I'm in a position to restrict access to the data, then I own it, unless there is some legal authority that has jurisdiction over me that says I must make it available to the public.
Given that you haven't fixed your problem with scrapers (given the complaints you're making right in this thread.) It's obvious you're not in a position to restrict the data-- otherwise you'd not be complaining about scrapers, and thus you don't own it.
I'm glad you agree with my point that Walgreens owns their merchandise not because they stop shoplifters and restrict access, its because they purchased it and have title over it, and since GP has done no such thing they don't actually own it.
Operating a website doesn't automatically put you in that position, as evidenced by the fact that scraping does not require your consent to be possible. Ultimately there's little practical difference between someone's eyes viewing information and a program viewing that same information, a copy has been made in some form. Scraping a new site takes maybe a few hours of python to accomplish, the barrier is low.
I don't think you understand. If I decide as the owner of a site, that I don't want you scraping my business and I block you, then I am in that position. I'm automatically in that position because I can implement the blocks necessary to uphold the the terms of use of my business, or I can just do it for arbitrary reasons. Maybe you are hammering my server. Maybe I'm in a bad mood this morning and don't like that you're using Python.
I can unilaterally decide whether or not you use my business, in any way shape or form, even if I just don't like you, as long as I don't violate any laws (discrimination etc).
I absolutely understand, it's just not hard to make scraper traffic appear as (or be) legitimate browser traffic and/or simply distributed across numerous IPs. Other technical controls all have trivial circumvention methods. There is legal precedent (at least in the US) suggesting that scraping public information may be permissible under law (see HiQ Labs v. LinkedIn). Scrapers only ever need to succeed once.
Under these circumstances, how can a website operator feel any sense of practical control over scrapers?
This is kind of a silly argument. If a physical business trespasses me for shoplifting, I can just put on a disguise and go back and shoplift more. Why do business think they have control over shoplifters?
> It's actually very simple. If I'm in a position to restrict access to the data, then I own it, unless there is some legal authority that has jurisdiction over me that says I must make it available to the public.
So, in which jurisdiction are you? Because in US courts have confirmed multiple times that scraping public websites is legal.
I don’t think that meets the bar. Running a website is absolutely not equivalent to the collective effort people put in to populate that website with the information that actually gives the overall artifact its value. There is a large history of outrage when similar information repository websites with user-generated content violate expectations of openness. Nevermind the fact that the actual information itself isn’t even private or proprietary, just obscure and distributed.
> Do you think that you have a claim on ownership of the data because you drove by, saw what you liked, and decided that now you'll just rip the baton out of my hand?
I wouldn’t claim ownership nor want to, when I scrape stuff I usually just want information in a different format. I’m confused as to how you think you can even “own” data to begin with. Suppose that your users uploaded songs instead of RF info, do you believe you own their music solely because they chose to share it on your site? Do you think your users would believe that?