On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Jim Schneider wrote: > David Landgren wrote: > > Finance::FuturesQuote scrapes information from a web site that > > offers (I would imagine) futures quotes. > > > > The author of this module has received a cease-and-desist letter > > from the owner of the web site, since the module is in violation of > > the Terms of Use. > > > I'm guessing, since the website's owner sent a c&d, that this is > information that's available without having to log in or solve a > captcha. That would give the site's "Terms of Use" about as much legal > standing as those disclaimers of windshield damage liability on the > back of dump trucks. I'd be surprised if the module's author were to > actually be sued over this (although stranger things have happened), > especially since the author no longer has control over the module. > > Of course, I can't impose my own risk tolerance on anyone else, but I > doubt I'd be willing to go through this many hoops for a cease and > desist with no legal basis. > > Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, just a guy who's had to talk to way too > many of them.
This has come up before (e.g. the WWW::EuroTV removal request in 2003). I still have the same opinion I had back then: | I think this discussion is missing the point. It should not be: "What | can we legally get away with?", but "Do we have the courtesy to | respect the wishes of publishers of information?", even if their | wishes might not be legally enforceable. | | Since this is about Perl advocacy, I would like to quote a bit of Perl | culture: "It [Perl] would prefer that you stayed out of its living | room because you weren't invited, not because it has a shotgun." | | I think the same rules should apply for screenscrapers too: If website | owners don't want their pages to be scraped, then people shouldn't do | it and get their information elsewhere. It is like honoring a | robots.txt file. It is probably not enforceable, but it is the right | thing to do. http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01761.html Cheers, -Jan