Data Scraping

“Data Scraping” is an umbrella term used for a number of separate but related types of activity. In short, it covers the extraction of data generally from human-readable output from a computer program or website. Make no mistake, “data scraping” is a major issue and one that will continue grow in importance: airlines, media content owners and directory services’ providers are very much alive to the data scraping threat.

Data scraping offers many obvious commercial advantages – scraping saves the time, effort and cost to collate data and build a database (or content)– but, unless done legally or with the agreement of the owners of the websites, it is likely to be unlawful. There is no specific offence of data scraping, but a content owner can use contract law, intellectual property rights and statute against a scraper.

For a more detailed analysis, see “Scrapping over data: are the data scrapers’ days numbered”, an article written by our lawyers, published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law.

Our team has experience in advising clients across a range of sectors on data scraping and related issues, including:

    Advising content owners on action they can take against scrapers including infringement of copyright & database right and breach of contract
    Advising potential scrapers on the extent to which it is lawful to scrape
    Dealing with the impact of publicity surrounding any use of data-scraping

Our approach is to give advice rather than options, as in our experience, this helps clients make the best business decisions.

Our lawyers keep up to date on the latest technologies, enabling them to offer pragmatic, sensible and business orientated advice. This understanding means our lawyers are able to anticipate and resolve the legal issues raised by data scraping. We undertake a range of technology work across the sectors. which gives us a particular insight into the legal developments and business changes.

Professional Memberships

Our lawyers are members of a number of sector-focused organisations which help ensure we are involved in high level discussions on industry developments.

These include:

    Anti-Copying In Design (ACID)
    Anti-Counterfeiting Group
    Cloud Industry Forum
    Federation Against Software Theft
    Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys
    Intellectual Property Lawyers Association
    Law Society European Group
    Society for Computers and Law
    Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
    British Literary & Artistic Copyright Association

Our lawyers continue to lead legal and commercial thinking in the sector – you can see some of their views at our TomiLaw blog - a view of Technology, Online, Media and Intellectual property issues and news. Click here for the latest updates.


Source: http://www.dmhstallard.com/site/services/ipservices/data_scraping/

New Hood commander, Hasan's lawyers to meet

FORT WORTH, Texas — The attorney for the Fort Hood shooting suspect plans to urge the post's new commanding general not to seek the death penalty in the case, he said Tuesday.

John Galligan, lead attorney for Maj. Nidal Hasan, is to meet May 6 with Lt. Gen. Donald Campbell, who said Tuesday that he will consider anything the defense team presents before he makes any decisions in the case.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the November 2009 shootings.

Two Army colonels have recommended that Hasan be court-martialed and face the death penalty. A commanding general will make the final decision, and it's expected to be Campbell, although he could send the case to another general to make that decision.

Galligan said that he will urge Campbell to consider all options, saying death-penalty cases are more costly, time-consuming and restrictive. If Campbell decides that Hasan will be court-martialed and face the death penalty, Hasan will no longer have the option of pleading guilty and must have a jury trial rather than opt for a judge to decide the case, which could pose problems if an impartial jury cannot be found at Fort Hood, Galligan said.

If Campbell decides that Hasan will go to trial but will not face the death penalty, then the punishment will be life without parole in a military prison if convicted, Galligan said.

"There is a way for closure for people and for anybody who's a victim, and [not seeking the death penalty] makes sense," Galligan told The Associated Press from his office near Fort Hood. "There are some people in society who don't want justice as much as they want vengeance."

Galligan, who said he was not admitting his client's guilt, said the defense team has been "actively engaging with the prosecution only to determine if there's a way to get the death penalty off the table, with no apparent progress."

Galligan declined to say whether he is considering an insanity defense for Hasan, 40, who was paralyzed from the waist down after being shot by police the day of the rampage and remains jailed.

Last month Galligan had requested a delay in proceedings in Hasan's case until late April, after Campbell assumed command Fort Hood. Galligan also requested a meeting with Campbell.

Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, who left the post last week to become a four-star general and take command of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va, granted that request.


Source: http://www.armytimes.com/article/20110426/NEWS/104260303/New-Hood-commander-Hasan-s-lawyers-to-meet

California Court Refuses to Dismiss Craiglist’s Data Scraping Case Against 3Taps

Yet another “data scraping” case is percolating in the Northern District of  California. Craigslist has sued the online aggregator 3Taps, Inc. (and others), claiming that they illegally copied Craigslist’s classified apartment listings. In effect, 3Taps was attempting to disintermediate Craigslist—to insert itself between Craigslist and its users.

3Taps filed a motion to dismiss the multiple claims asserted in the suit, most of which was denied in the decision linked below.

Of particular interest is the court’s refusal to dismiss Craigslist’s claim that 3Taps violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a controversial federal “anti-hacker” statute that has been interpreted in conflicting ways by the federal courts (see an earlier post on this topic here), and which was the law Aaron Schwartz was accused of violating (contributing, many believe, to his suicide earlier this year).

The CFAA permits a civil cause of action against any person who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . . information from any protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(c).  Craigslist has alleged that 3Taps’ use of Craigslist’s listings violated a cease and desist letter Craigslist sent to 3Tap prohibiting it from republishing the listings. The court found that 3Taps’ continued use was a potential violation of the CFAA as the Ninth Circuit has interpreted that statute, and denied 3Taps’ motion to dismiss that claim.

This ruling is consistent with decisions in the First Circuit, the federal circuit which includes Massachusetts. (See, e.g., EFF Cultural Travel v. Explorica, 1st Cir. 2001).

Although the California district court denied 3Tap’s motion to dismiss the CFAA claim, it  expressed its concerns around the policy issues raised by Craigslist’s CFAA claim in this case.  Quoting from the opinion:

    The parties have not addressed a threshold question of whether the CFAA applies where the owner of an otherwise publicly available website takes steps to restrict access by specific entities, such as the owner’s competitors. “Some commentators have noted that suits under anti-hacking laws have gone beyond the intended scope of such laws and are increasingly being used as a tactical tool to gain business or litigation advantages.” … The CFAA was passed in 1986, well before the development of the modern internet, and originally only covered certain computers operated by the federal government or financial institutions. … Although courts in this district have held that the CFAA may apply to unauthorized access to websites, the parties have not cited a case from this district or the Ninth Circuit addressing its application to information that is generally available to the public. … Applying the CFAA to publicly available website information presents uncomfortable possibilities. Any corporation could subject its competitors to civil and criminal liability for visiting its otherwise publicly available home page; in theory, a major news outlet could seek criminal charges against competing journalists for reading articles on its website.

These comments are a reflection of the Ninth Circuit’s concerns about the application of this statute, as described in the Ninth Circuit’s high-profile 2012 en banc decision in U.S. v. Nosal.

Last year (when this suit was filed) Professor Eric Goldman provided a trenchant analysis of the business issues facing Craigslist which motivated it to bring this lawsuit. He concluded, “even though it might look like Craigslist is making bizarre moves, I think its moves are quite rational. They’re exactly the kind of moves you’d expect from a panicked company realizing its uncomfortably precarious marketplace position.”

Source: http://masslawblog.com/cfaa/4585/

Data Scraping from Web Services

This month’s Wired magazine has a perceptive article about so-called "data scraping" or "screen scraping" practices.  It discusses the practical aspects of data scraping (such as IP address banning or blocking as a practical remedy to prevent scraping), use of cease and desist letters, and use of properly-licensed web services application programming interfaces (API’s) as a way to control such practices.

The article does not provide any detail about underlying legal theories or court cases to prevent data scraping, such as those based on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) or court cases concerning unfair competition.

Source: http://boadweelaw.com/data-scraping-from-web-services/

“Data Scraping” Does Not Violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if the Data is Publicly Available

ALEXANDRIA — A federal district court in the Eastern District of Virginia recently held that an event planner who “scraped” data about hotels, restaurants, bars, and meeting rooms from a publicly available Web site did not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

The plaintiff in Cvent, Inc. v. Eventbrite, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96354 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2010) operated a Web site that assisted customers in locating venues for organizing large-scale events. The Web site contained a massive database that listed detailed information about venues all over the world, including the availability, capacity, and amenities of meeting rooms in various cities. Defendant Eventbrite offered event planning services through its Web site and set out to create a similar “Venue Directory” that would contain information about hotels, restaurants, bars, and meeting rooms.

Rather than aggregate this data on its own, however, Eventbrite hired a computer engineer to “scrape” the data from Cvent’s online database. “Data scraping” is a technique in which an automated program scans and copies information that was intended for human viewing. The legal issue was whether data scraping violates laws prohibiting the unauthorized access of data from protected computers.

Credit: NIST

Cvent argued that Eventbrite’s scraping violated section 1030(a)(2) of the CFAA, which prohibits accessing a protected computer without authorization—or exceeding authorized access—in order to obtain information. In dismissing this claim, the court noted the distinction between unauthorized use of data and unauthorized access to data. Only unauthorized access constitutes a violation of the CFAA. Cvent’s database, however, was publicly available on its Web site and could be accessed without any password or login information. In the court’s words, “the entire world was given unimpeded access” to Cvent’s database and Eventbrite had therefore not violated the CFAA when it scraped that information.

Cvent argued unsuccessfully that it had, in fact, limited Eventbrite’s access by virtue of a “browsewrap” agreement containing its Terms of Use, which stated that “No competitors or future competitors are permitted to access our site or information, and any such access… is unauthorized.” The court noted, however, that despite this language, Cvent took no “affirmative steps” to prevent competitors from accessing its database. Because the browsewrap agreement was not prominently displayed, and could only be discovered by following a series of links, no reasonable user could be expected to notice it.

Cvent, Inc. v. Eventbrite, Inc. stands in contrast to Snap-On Business Solutions Inc. v. O’Neil & Associates, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37688 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2010), another data scraping case decided last spring in which the court refused to grant the defendant summary judgment on the plaintiff’s CFAA claims. There, the information on the targeted Web site had been password-protected and the log-in screen alerted visitors that their use of the site was governed by an End User License Agreement, which users could link to directly. Because of these features, the court concluded that a genuine issue of fact existed as to the scope of authorization and the existence of a contract.

These cases offer important lessons for Web site operators concerned about data scraping. As Cvent demonstrates, the operators of targeted Web sites may be without recourse under the CFAA if the information was made publicly available. However, the Snap-On case provides examples of measures that Web site operators can take to protect themselves.

Source: http://wjlta.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/%E2%80%9Cdata-scraping%E2%80%9D-does-not-violate-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-if-the-data-is-publicly-available/

Note:

Roze Tailer is experienced web scraping consultant and writes articles on linkedin email scraping, linkedin profile scraping, tripadvisor data scraping, lawyers data scraping, yellowpages data scraping and product information scraping.

Scraping Lawsuits and Copyright Claims

Professor Eric Goldman had an interesting post recently recapping the growth of scraping lawsuits in the e-real estate industry.  Web scraping, in simplest terms, is the practice of harvesting data from a particular website.  Often, this data is copied and re-packaged on another website for the purpose of monetary gain - either through sales, clicks or links.

Real estate websites, as Goldman's post points out, are particularly susceptible to this practice.  Real estate internet listings usually consist  of photographs and text descriptions of the property.  Copyright law is the most obvious tool useful for protecting such information and prosecuting data scrapers.  Interesting analysis has appeared lately questioning whether or not the text descriptions of the properties contain enough creative expression to deserve protection under the Copyright Act.  Furthermore, scrapers may advance a broad defense under the Fair Use Doctrine.

Goldman points out, and I agree, that the photographic elements of such listings likely provide the strongest protection.  Photographs are generally unquestionably granted protection under the Copyright Act.  As such, multi-listing services should make sure not only to include photographs but to obtain proper ownership and submit copyright registrations.  Registrations entitle plaintiffs to statutory damages and attorney fees in the event of infringement.  This is important because often scraping infringements do not result in quantifiable or significant damages - rendering litigation an unprofitable option.

Even if copyright infringement claims are not clear, there are usually a number of viable state law claims to combat scraping.  The most obvious is breach of contract - which can be accomplished by inserting a no scraping clause in a website's terms of service.  Some courts may have problem with assent if there is no affirmative click through agreement.  Secondly, depending on how scraping is accomplished (there are several methods), there may be claims under the CFAA for unauthorized server access.  Finally, many states, in particular, California, have unfair competition laws which offer broad protection for business practices deemed unfair.  As long as pecuniary damages can be shown or that the defendant profited from the scraping activity, such claims are likely to succeed. 

Source: http://syversonlaw.blogspot.in/2013/01/scraping-lawsuits-and-copyright-claims.html

Note:

Roze Tailer is experienced web scraping consultant and writes articles on linkedin email scraping, linkedin profile scraping, tripadvisor data scraping, lawyers data scraping, yellowpages data scraping and product information scraping.

Scraping Lawsuits and Copyright Claims

Professor Eric Goldman had an interesting post recently recapping the growth of scraping lawsuits in the e-real estate industry.  Web scraping, in simplest terms, is the practice of harvesting data from a particular website.  Often, this data is copied and re-packaged on another website for the purpose of monetary gain - either through sales, clicks or links.

Real estate websites, as Goldman's post points out, are particularly susceptible to this practice.  Real estate internet listings usually consist  of photographs and text descriptions of the property.  Copyright law is the most obvious tool useful for protecting such information and prosecuting data scrapers.  Interesting analysis has appeared lately questioning whether or not the text descriptions of the properties contain enough creative expression to deserve protection under the Copyright Act.  Furthermore, scrapers may advance a broad defense under the Fair Use Doctrine.

Goldman points out, and I agree, that the photographic elements of such listings likely provide the strongest protection.  Photographs are generally unquestionably granted protection under the Copyright Act.  As such, multi-listing services should make sure not only to include photographs but to obtain proper ownership and submit copyright registrations.  Registrations entitle plaintiffs to statutory damages and attorney fees in the event of infringement.  This is important because often scraping infringements do not result in quantifiable or significant damages - rendering litigation an unprofitable option.

Even if copyright infringement claims are not clear, there are usually a number of viable state law claims to combat scraping.  The most obvious is breach of contract - which can be accomplished by inserting a no scraping clause in a website's terms of service.  Some courts may have problem with assent if there is no affirmative click through agreement.  Secondly, depending on how scraping is accomplished (there are several methods), there may be claims under the CFAA for unauthorized server access.  Finally, many states, in particular, California, have unfair competition laws which offer broad protection for business practices deemed unfair.  As long as pecuniary damages can be shown or that the defendant profited from the scraping activity, such claims are likely to succeed.

An experienced Internet copyright litigation attorney is able to advise both defendants and plaintiffs of their rights in web-scraping cases. 

Source: http://syversonlaw.blogspot.in/2013/01/scraping-lawsuits-and-copyright-claims.html

Note:

Roze Tailer is experienced web scraping consultant and writes articles on linkedin email scraping, linkedin profile scraping, tripadvisor data scraping, lawyers data scraping, yellowpages data scraping and product information scraping.