Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Internet 'Data Scraping'
The proliferation of Internet access and mobile devices has led to an exponential explosion of content on the Web, creating a vast repository of “publicly available” information. This includes not only news, business and financial information, but also personal data, movie and restaurant reviews, concert ticket sales, flight information, and a virtually endless array of other categories. This same technological explosion, however, has made it far easier for third parties to extract this data for commercial sale and use ' and to do so for free and without authorization. This data extraction, commonly referred to as “scraping,” “crawling,” or “spidering” (collectively “scraping”), creates legal issues and concerns for both sides of this issue ' those who want to scrape, and those who want to protect against scraping of their websites. See, EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer, 318 F.3d 58, 60 (1st Cir. 2003) (“A scraper, also called a 'robot' or 'bot,' is nothing more than a computer program that accesses information contained in a succession of webpages stored on the accessed computer”); eBay v. Bidder's Edge, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
While it is possible to embed instructions on websites that inform the scraping software whether scraping is permitted (called “robot.txt” files), compliance with such instructions is voluntary. See, Bidder's Edge , at 1061.
This article provides a primer on the legal framework surrounding scraping, addressing both the grounds for potential claims against scrapers, and ways to avoid liability for scraping. The common theories of liability arising from scraping are copyright infringement, trespass to chattels, breach of contract, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. '1030. This article also discusses the leading cases applying these legal theories to website scraping, and concludes that the most effective way to create potential claims against scrapers is through carefully drafted prohibitions in a website's Terms of Use. Conversely, the most effective way to defend against a claim of unauthorized scraping is to abide by such Terms of Use, or to establish that scraping constitutes a fair use and does not overburden the servers of the website being scraped.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.