volatilegx - 4:34 pm on Jan 26, 2006 (gmt 0) So scraping can't be considered intellectual property theft as long as it's automated? Ridiculous. [edited by: volatilegx at 4:35 pm (utc) on Jan. 26, 2006]
What scares me is a precedent quoted in the case saying
To demonstrate copyright infringement, “the plaintiff must show ownership of the
copyright and copying by the defendant.” Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 817 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also 17 U.S.C. § 501. A plaintiff must also show volitional conduct on the part of
the defendant in order to support a finding of direct copyright infringement. See Religious Tech.
Ctr v. Netcom On-Line Commc’n Servs., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, 1369-70 (N.D. Cal. 1995)
(direct infringement requires a volitional act by defendant; automated copying by machines
occasioned by others not sufficient); CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 555 (4th
Cir. 2004) (“Agreeing with the analysis in Netcom, we hold that the automatic copying, storage,
and transmission of copyrighted materials, when instigated by others, does not render an ISP
strictly liable for copyright infringement under §§ 501 and 106 of the Copyright Act.”).
So scraping can't be considered intellectual property theft as long as it's automated? Ridiculous.
[edited by: volatilegx at 4:35 pm (utc) on Jan. 26, 2006]