|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 07/23/06 14:07
Csaba Gabor wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>Csaba Gabor wrote:
>>
>>>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kenneth Downs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Additionally, do you have permission from EBay to use their information
>>>>>>in this way? All of it is copyrighted, and using it without their
>>>>>>permission can get you and the developer in a lot of trouble. Of
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmmm, I would wonder about the distinction between their HTML pages and the
>>>>>data points.
>>>>>
>>>>>Copying an entire page and displaying it as part of your business would
>>>>>definitely be a violation. Oh, except for google does that, um, they do it
>>>>>actually with the entire internet. There have been a few high-profile
>>>>>cases of people objecting, but by-and-large it seems to go forward.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ras is talking about gathering data points that they have made public. I
>>>>>would bet (of course IANAL) that he is ok until he starts thinking about
>>>>>going public. Then he will have to acknowledge the source of the data and
>>>>>obtain some kind of understanding.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But EBay is also a data collection - and that collection is copyrighted,
>>>>also. You can't make use of the collection without their approval, even
>>>>if you do just excerpt data and use the data in another way.
>>>
>>>
>>>Copyright applies only to presentation (of data, et. al.) and not to
>>>data itself. There was a case way back when where Ma Bell sued some
>>>upstart for trying to make their own yellow pages and the argument was
>>>that the information was copyrighted. I seem to recollect that the
>>>decision went against Ma Bell (AT&T) because they could only claim
>>>copyright on their particular presentation. If the data was presented
>>>another way (for example, reordered by first name) then there was no
>>>protection.
>>>
>>
>>That's where you're wrong. The data itself can also be copyrighted, as
>>when it is part of a collection. I suggest you check your sources
>>again. There have been many claims won because the data itself was used
>>without permission.
>
>
> Evidently, I was right (except that it was white pages). It was a 1991
> Supreme Court decision (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone
> Service) that is alluded to here:
> http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/?f=cpt_wipo_treaty-primer.txt
> That page is basically documenting a reaction to the decision wherein
> WIPO is trying to get the US to sign exactly the kind of treaty
> extending to database protections that you suggest is in place.
>
> Could you cite a link or two about claims being won because data itself
> was being used without permission, where there was no user agreement
> not to use the data? That would be very informative.
>
As I've said before. If you want good information, get it from a
copyright attorney. That's where I get mine. Not internet links.
And don't try to interpret what you read on the internet yourself. You
are not getting it right.
>
>>>At the same time, I seem to remember that the case above has been
>>>superceded or its precedent has been mollified by subsequent cases, but
>>>I don't remember how.
>
>
>>I'd suggest you get a copyright attorney to give you the real facts,
>>instead of maybe remembering something which may or may not be correct.
>
>
> When/if I encounter a situation where I need one.
> In this thread, we're discussing our own understandings as non lawyers.
> And citing information to the extent possible, right?
>
> To that end, here is a 'recent' summary (upshot: copyright law does not
> protect data in databases) by the EFF about the state of affairs in
> 2004:
> http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/20040607_database_protection.pdf
> which link I found at:
> http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/?f=archive.html
> Actually, two years is a long time on this front. More recent info
> would be welcome.
>
Again - get a copyright attorney's advice. What you get on the internet
does not qualify as legal advice and may or may not be correct.
Additionally, you may misinterpret what it said (like you did the
library info).
>
>>>Another case of data vs. presentation is the data points of the
>>>boundaries between countries, states, counties, etc. A map is
>>>copyrighted because it is a presentation of the underlying data points.
>>> However, are those data points public domain? If you look at the
>>>agreement that you have to sign with the various map companies on the
>>>internet, they all say that you agree not to republish the underlying
>>>data points in any form. Thus, it is not a question of copyright, it
>>>truly is a question of user agreement.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, the data points are public domain. And yes, it is a matter of
>>copyright. If not, they would have no grounds to stand on to require
>>such an agreement. Someone could easily sue to them to provide the
>>information.
>
>
> This is actually a fascinating area, but its own separate thread.
>
No, it's not. I will not continue it here. It has nothing to do with
PHP. And if you want legal advice, see an attorney.
>
>>>I'd be at least somewhat worried in the original poster's place. I
>>>don't see an issue of his copying pages (by the way, when I say
>>>copying, I am thinking that what the OP is doing is extracting the
>>>relevant data from the given pages and saving only that - why waste
>>>extra bytes? - and plus you need extracted data to be able to work with
>>>it) - to this point, it's all research. When he starts thinking about
>>>publishing the data (I presume he's not republishing the pages. If he
>>>does, he does have copyright issues) in a for sale book, then I think
>>>it's important to do very careful legal research.
>>>
>>
>>And even for personal use it is liable to be a copyright violation. I
>>would NOT want eBay's attorneys gaffer me.
>>
>>>>The Weather Channel is another data collection. The current temperature
>>>>is public data - available for free from the National Weather Service.
>>>>You cannot, for instance, collect hourly temperature readings a city or
>>>>cities from TWC's site, because the site is copyrighted. The fact it is
>>>>public and freely available from the NWS website doesn't matter - the
>>>>collection on TWC's site is copyrighted.
>>>
>>>
>>>Interesting case. The US government's National Weather Service (NOAA)
>>>at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/disclaimer.php does say that their data is
>>>free (see the third bullet point).
>>>
>>
>>Exactly. It is free from the NWS, because it is a government agency.
>>As a result, the data is, by definition, public domain.
>>
>>
>>>However, I don't see where The Weather Channel's data is protected
>>>after reading over section 3B of
>>>http://www.weather.com/common/home/legal.html
>>>In my read of the penultimate sentence, it is saying that you can't do
>>>anything with anything from their site unless it is allowed by law. So
>>>the question comes back, what is allowed by law as far as data
>>>collection/dissemination goes?
>>>
>>
>>Check with a copyright attorney. The collection itself, even though of
>>public data, can and is copyrighted.
>>
>>
>>>>This has been upheld many times in courts around the country.
>
>
> Would you substantiate this claim?
>
> Csaba
>
My information comes from one of the larger copyright attorney firms (I
am in the Washington, DC area, after all) in the country. I trust their
information much more than anything you say or I see quoted on the
internet. After all - they're job is to protect my assets. And I pay
them well for it.
I will not continue this conversation. My comment was to give fair
warning to the original poster that what he is doing could get him in a
lot of trouble. It was not to argue law with you or anyone else.
You want legal advice? Don't get it from the internet. See your
attorney. I will not quote internet sites for legal advice. And I will
not continue this discussion.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|