By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
439,978 Members | 1,373 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 439,978 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Oh please oh please oh pleeeease

P: n/a
I'm hoping someone can help me out. I'm a researcher in need of
developing an automated database and would like to see if someone here
is willing to consider putting together for me a simple website. I'm
not expecting a freebie of course, I'll pay if you're interested.

This is the outline of the project:

This would be a website that pulls records from closed eBay auctions
and stores them in predefined categories. The data would be formatted
by keyword. For example, if we were to pull all auctions over the
course of a year in ebay's categories for shoes I could ask that the
programming place them based on shoe colors black, blue and brown and
ignore all other auctions that do not have those keywords in the
auction title. I would then have on my site a database of shoe auctions
that grows each day and a link for each of the three colors of shoes.

A picture is worth a thousand words - here's a flowchart of the layout
and functionality I have in mind:

http://www.dirtyoldbooks.com/temp/sample1.jpg and, assume you click the
blue shoes link,
http://www.dirtyoldbooks.com/temp/sample2.jpg clicking on any of those
links would then pull up the old auction, stored on my site (not linked
to ebay of course).

I could foresee fancying it up a bit by adding a search function, a
counter for total records stored and a way to delete records caught by
the spider that are irrelevant but that's pretty much the extent of
what I'm looking for.

I can be reached at rasiel at dirty old books dot com but I'll follow
the thread in case I'm waaaay out of line asking for this sort of thing
on this NG.

Many thanks,

Ras

Jul 21 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
22 Replies


P: n/a
ra****@dirtyoldbooks.com wrote:
I'm hoping someone can help me out. I'm a researcher in need of
developing an automated database and would like to see if someone here
is willing to consider putting together for me a simple website. I'm
not expecting a freebie of course, I'll pay if you're interested.

This is the outline of the project:

This would be a website that pulls records from closed eBay auctions
and stores them in predefined categories. The data would be formatted
by keyword. For example, if we were to pull all auctions over the
course of a year in ebay's categories for shoes I could ask that the
programming place them based on shoe colors black, blue and brown and
ignore all other auctions that do not have those keywords in the
auction title. I would then have on my site a database of shoe auctions
that grows each day and a link for each of the three colors of shoes.

A picture is worth a thousand words - here's a flowchart of the layout
and functionality I have in mind:

http://www.dirtyoldbooks.com/temp/sample1.jpg and, assume you click the
blue shoes link,
http://www.dirtyoldbooks.com/temp/sample2.jpg clicking on any of those
links would then pull up the old auction, stored on my site (not linked
to ebay of course).

I could foresee fancying it up a bit by adding a search function, a
counter for total records stored and a way to delete records caught by
the spider that are irrelevant but that's pretty much the extent of
what I'm looking for.

I can be reached at rasiel at dirty old books dot com but I'll follow
the thread in case I'm waaaay out of line asking for this sort of thing
on this NG.

Many thanks,

Ras
Ras,

No, I don't think you're way out of line asking here in the newsgroup.
But I think what you're asking is a lot more than a "simple website".
For instance, the matching won't at all be easy.

To take your example - what if this listing is for "pumps"? Do you put
it in "shoes" or "machinery"? OK, so you look for the word "shoes".
But now it lists "horse shoes", as in the game.

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
course, if this is for valid research, I would think they would be quite
willing to grant that permission. And any responsible developer would
want to ensure this is in place before starting.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jul 21 '06 #2

P: n/a

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
....
Ras,
...
>
To take your example - what if this listing is for "pumps"? Do you put
it in "shoes" or "machinery"? OK, so you look for the word "shoes".
But now it lists "horse shoes", as in the game.
these would be easy - in the first case the logic would simply ignore
pumps and those records skipped while in the latter the data would be
included; however, seeing that "horse shoes" or something similar would
be unlikely to appear in the shoes category the data would not be
seriously polluted. i am only thinking of having programming focus on
one ebay category, not the entire site. also, having a way to manually
delete invalid entries as outlined in the original post would be a
great tool for trimming out invalid records.
>
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
course, if this is for valid research, I would think they would be quite
willing to grant that permission. And any responsible developer would
want to ensure this is in place before starting.
this is more of a problem since it's notoriously difficult to get a
hold of a "real live person" in a posiion to grant such a request.
however, this is meant for my private use in compiling statistics
towards a book i'm writing so i see little reason why anyone would
object. it might even fall under the 'fair use' clause of copyright
law.

thanks again jerry!

ras

Jul 21 '06 #3

P: n/a
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
ra****@dirtyoldbooks.com wrote:
I'm hoping someone can help me out. I'm a researcher in need of
developing an automated database and would like to see if someone here
is willing to consider putting together for me a simple website. I'm
not expecting a freebie of course, I'll pay if you're interested.

This is the outline of the project:

This would be a website that pulls records from closed eBay auctions
and stores them in predefined categories. The data would be formatted
by keyword. For example, if we were to pull all auctions over the
course of a year in ebay's categories for shoes I could ask that the
programming place them based on shoe colors black, blue and brown and
ignore all other auctions that do not have those keywords in the
auction title. I would then have on my site a database of shoe auctions
that grows each day and a link for each of the three colors of shoes.

I can be reached at rasiel at dirty old books dot com but I'll follow
the thread in case I'm waaaay out of line asking for this sort of thing
on this NG.
No, I don't think you're way out of line asking here in the newsgroup.
But I think what you're asking is a lot more than a "simple website".
....
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.
I'm no lawyer, but...
Don't you mean ->distributing<- it without their permission. To make a
copy isn't illegal, as far as I know. Anyone can save a web page
without fear of retribution as far as I'm aware, unless the material
itself is illegal.

Now a more substantial issue (on the assumption that copyright is not a
substantial issue here) is automated access to ebay's web pages. Of
course we know that sniping happens all the time whether ebay likes it
or not, but that doesn't remove any responsibility from the would be
researcher.

So the question is, may the researcher, without any agreement, access
ebay's pages each day on an automated basis. My sentiment is (without
regard to actual fact) that if the person on the other side cannot tell
the difference, then what difference does it make whether it is
automated or not? Aren't computers all automated to a certain extent?
And aren't servers the epitome of automation? There's a lot of pot
calling kettle black here. End of sentiment.

So the question for me boils down to one of: (1) May the researcher
(with or without agreement) access ebay's pages on a daily basis? (2)
May the researcher distribute results?

It would be real interesting for me to hear about actual cases. Ummm,
make that get links to reports of actual cases.
Of course, if this is for valid research, I would think they would be quite
willing to grant that permission. And any responsible developer would
want to ensure this is in place before starting.
The researcher hasn't indicated whether he is researching for his own
improved buying/selling experience (which I would argue everyone does
to a certain extent) and seems to me to be within the bounds of ebay's
agreement, or whether he is engaged in academic or other research.

Csaba Gabor from Vienna

Jul 21 '06 #4

P: n/a

Csaba Gabor wrote:
.....
>
The researcher hasn't indicated whether he is researching for his own
improved buying/selling experience (which I would argue everyone does
to a certain extent) and seems to me to be within the bounds of ebay's
agreement, or whether he is engaged in academic or other research.

Csaba Gabor from Vienna
well these are interesting tangents i hadn't considered. for what it's
worth i will be using the data (collected from the ancient roman coin
section, not shoes heheh) to put together pricing and rarity
information. although the book will be sold for my profit the data
gathered would become public domain and the book itself will guide the
collector towards ebay.

so the answer to your question is that at a theoretical level it's a
symbiotic relationship. at a practical level ebay could likely care
less but may say no just because it's written in one of their
boilerplate eulas somewhere. maybe.

ras
ps. i have gotten two proposals from this thread already. i hope i get
even more :-)

Jul 21 '06 #5

P: n/a
ra****@dirtyoldbooks.com wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
...
>>Ras,

..
>>To take your example - what if this listing is for "pumps"? Do you put
it in "shoes" or "machinery"? OK, so you look for the word "shoes".
But now it lists "horse shoes", as in the game.


these would be easy - in the first case the logic would simply ignore
pumps and those records skipped while in the latter the data would be
included; however, seeing that "horse shoes" or something similar would
be unlikely to appear in the shoes category the data would not be
seriously polluted. i am only thinking of having programming focus on
one ebay category, not the entire site. also, having a way to manually
delete invalid entries as outlined in the original post would be a
great tool for trimming out invalid records.

>>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
course, if this is for valid research, I would think they would be quite
willing to grant that permission. And any responsible developer would
want to ensure this is in place before starting.

this is more of a problem since it's notoriously difficult to get a
hold of a "real live person" in a posiion to grant such a request.
however, this is meant for my private use in compiling statistics
towards a book i'm writing so i see little reason why anyone would
object. it might even fall under the 'fair use' clause of copyright
law.

thanks again jerry!

ras

Doesn't matter if it's for your private use or not - it's still
copyrighted. In the U.S. you can only excerpt small pieces for personal
use and not violate the copyright ("fair use". And I doubt a
compilation of sales in one category would count. And if it's for a
book, it's not "private use".

But then IANAL, either.

Did you try starting with email?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jul 21 '06 #6

P: n/a
Csaba Gabor wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>ra****@dirtyoldbooks.com wrote:
>>>I'm hoping someone can help me out. I'm a researcher in need of
developing an automated database and would like to see if someone here
is willing to consider putting together for me a simple website. I'm
not expecting a freebie of course, I'll pay if you're interested.

This is the outline of the project:

This would be a website that pulls records from closed eBay auctions
and stores them in predefined categories. The data would be formatted
by keyword. For example, if we were to pull all auctions over the
course of a year in ebay's categories for shoes I could ask that the
programming place them based on shoe colors black, blue and brown and
ignore all other auctions that do not have those keywords in the
auction title. I would then have on my site a database of shoe auctions
that grows each day and a link for each of the three colors of shoes.

I can be reached at rasiel at dirty old books dot com but I'll follow
the thread in case I'm waaaay out of line asking for this sort of thing
on this NG.

>>No, I don't think you're way out of line asking here in the newsgroup.
But I think what you're asking is a lot more than a "simple website".


...

>>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.


I'm no lawyer, but...
Don't you mean ->distributing<- it without their permission. To make a
copy isn't illegal, as far as I know. Anyone can save a web page
without fear of retribution as far as I'm aware, unless the material
itself is illegal.

Now a more substantial issue (on the assumption that copyright is not a
substantial issue here) is automated access to ebay's web pages. Of
course we know that sniping happens all the time whether ebay likes it
or not, but that doesn't remove any responsibility from the would be
researcher.

So the question is, may the researcher, without any agreement, access
ebay's pages each day on an automated basis. My sentiment is (without
regard to actual fact) that if the person on the other side cannot tell
the difference, then what difference does it make whether it is
automated or not? Aren't computers all automated to a certain extent?
And aren't servers the epitome of automation? There's a lot of pot
calling kettle black here. End of sentiment.

So the question for me boils down to one of: (1) May the researcher
(with or without agreement) access ebay's pages on a daily basis? (2)
May the researcher distribute results?

It would be real interesting for me to hear about actual cases. Ummm,
make that get links to reports of actual cases.

>>Of course, if this is for valid research, I would think they would be quite
willing to grant that permission. And any responsible developer would
want to ensure this is in place before starting.


The researcher hasn't indicated whether he is researching for his own
improved buying/selling experience (which I would argue everyone does
to a certain extent) and seems to me to be within the bounds of ebay's
agreement, or whether he is engaged in academic or other research.

Csaba Gabor from Vienna
Actually, in the U.S., even making a copy is illegal. For instance, it
would be illegal to go to the library photocopy a book (or even a
newspaper or magazine article), even if it is for your own personal use.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jul 21 '06 #7

P: n/a

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
....
Actually, in the U.S., even making a copy is illegal. For instance, it
would be illegal to go to the library photocopy a book (or even a
newspaper or magazine article), even if it is for your own personal use.
it would be illegal to copy an ENTIRE book or article but to copy a
part of it may not be. for example, a video clip of a movie or a book
excerpt you're reviewing are ok. additionally, in order for a plaintiff
to have a reasonable chance of having a case brought to court he would
have to show that the material infringed upon has cost him a direct
loss of business or that his company name/assets have been harmed.

to bring this back full circle, ebay would have to therefore make a
claim that use of a robot has caused it harm by exploiting its
resources in a manner not likely to generate it any income. in other
words, unfair use. they could not make the claim that the data
collected has caused them lost income because the data collected is
from closed auctions.

ras

Jul 21 '06 #8

P: n/a
ra****@dirtyoldbooks.com wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
...
>>Actually, in the U.S., even making a copy is illegal. For instance, it
would be illegal to go to the library photocopy a book (or even a
newspaper or magazine article), even if it is for your own personal use.


it would be illegal to copy an ENTIRE book or article but to copy a
part of it may not be. for example, a video clip of a movie or a book
excerpt you're reviewing are ok. additionally, in order for a plaintiff
to have a reasonable chance of having a case brought to court he would
have to show that the material infringed upon has cost him a direct
loss of business or that his company name/assets have been harmed.

to bring this back full circle, ebay would have to therefore make a
claim that use of a robot has caused it harm by exploiting its
resources in a manner not likely to generate it any income. in other
words, unfair use. they could not make the claim that the data
collected has caused them lost income because the data collected is
from closed auctions.

ras
Yes, you can copy a page or two. You couldn't get away with even a
chapter. Or even a magazine article.

And Ebay doesn't have to prove any harm. They doesn't even have to
prove unfair use. That's not a requirement of copyright violation.

Additionally, unfair use is assumed in most cases and the plaintiff has
to prove fair use. This is civil law, not criminal law.

All it has to do is prove someone copying more than a little bit of
their site.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jul 22 '06 #9

P: n/a
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
course, if this is for valid research, I would think they would be quite
willing to grant that permission. And any responsible developer would
want to ensure this is in place before starting.

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.
--
Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
(Ken)nneth@(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)
Jul 22 '06 #10

P: n/a
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
course, if this is for valid research, I would think they would be quite
willing to grant that permission. And any responsible developer would
want to ensure this is in place before starting.

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.

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.

This has been upheld many times in courts around the country.

IANAL - but I got a good education on it when I sued a company for
taking my courseware for their own use. Their legal department settled
quickly - they knew they would lose in court. But in the meantime my
attorney provided me with lots of good info.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jul 22 '06 #11

P: n/a
Hey Jerry,
you better be careful about that wholesale quoting when replying to a
post. That's making a copy, after all ... and I wouldn't want you to
run afoul of any laws ...

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Csaba Gabor wrote:

I'm no lawyer, but...
Don't you mean ->distributing<- it without their permission. To make a
copy isn't illegal, as far as I know. Anyone can save a web page
without fear of retribution as far as I'm aware, unless the material
itself is illegal.
....
Actually, in the U.S., even making a copy is illegal.
For instance, it would be illegal to go to the library photocopy a book (or even a
newspaper or magazine article), even if it is for your own personal use.
This is not true. Here is a link as it applies to libraries:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter7/7-d.html

In addition to the interesting reading at the site above, I also called
the Greenville, SC main library and they have a photocopy machine that
the patrons may make copies on for $.15(!) per page. There are fair
use notices on the photocopy machine.

Csaba

Jul 22 '06 #12

P: n/a
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.

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.

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.

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.
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).

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?
This has been upheld many times in courts around the country.

IANAL - but I got a good education on it when I sued a company for
taking my courseware for their own use. Their legal department settled
quickly - they knew they would lose in court. But in the meantime my
attorney provided me with lots of good info.
Your case seems like a straight copyright issue to me, too.

Csaba

Jul 22 '06 #13

P: n/a
Csaba Gabor wrote:
Hey Jerry,
you better be careful about that wholesale quoting when replying to a
post. That's making a copy, after all ... and I wouldn't want you to
run afoul of any laws ...

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>Csaba Gabor wrote:
>>>I'm no lawyer, but...
Don't you mean ->distributing<- it without their permission. To make a
copy isn't illegal, as far as I know. Anyone can save a web page
without fear of retribution as far as I'm aware, unless the material
itself is illegal.

...
>>Actually, in the U.S., even making a copy is illegal.
For instance, it would be illegal to go to the library photocopy a book (or even a
newspaper or magazine article), even if it is for your own personal use.


This is not true. Here is a link as it applies to libraries:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter7/7-d.html
Yes, as it applies to LIBRARIES. Not individuals. And no where does it
say entire works can be copied.
In addition to the interesting reading at the site above, I also called
the Greenville, SC main library and they have a photocopy machine that
the patrons may make copies on for $.15(!) per page. There are fair
use notices on the photocopy machine.

Csaba
Yes, and the user is responsible for fair use. It just gets the library
off the hook in case of an infringement claim.

Rather than check with a library, I would recommend you check with a
copyright attorney.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jul 23 '06 #14

P: n/a
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.
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.
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.
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.

IANAL - but I got a good education on it when I sued a company for
taking my courseware for their own use. Their legal department settled
quickly - they knew they would lose in court. But in the meantime my
attorney provided me with lots of good info.


Your case seems like a straight copyright issue to me, too.

Csaba
Yes, but in the processing of pursuing with my attorney I got a good
education in copyright law.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jul 23 '06 #15

P: n/a
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_wi...aty-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.
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_...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.
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.
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

Jul 23 '06 #16

P: n/a
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_wi...aty-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_...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.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jul 23 '06 #17

P: n/a
You seem to be getting confused about what I want. I don't want the
kind of "good information" that you are talking about. What I do want
is to be able to form an informed opinion. That's what people all over
the world do. They don't pay a copyright lawyer hundreds of dollars
for an opionion on whether they may make a photocopy or not. What they
do is to discuss it with others, read about it, and form an opinion on
their own, whether or not it complies with actual law. It's not just
about copyright law, it's about all issues.

Furthermore, here's a not oft mentioned statistic: in 50% of court
cases with a decision, one side is not doing as well as they expected
(as in, they lose). That is to say, the information from those lawyers
was not "good information" since it did not sustain their case. Legal
advice may or may not be correct. You say that it is the job of your
lawyers to protect your assets. You might want to review your contract
and ask them to do some more educating of you because that's not their
job. If your assets become lost in a court case, you figure your
lawyers are on the hook? Not hardly. The job of your lawyers is to
advise you as to how they think YOU could best protect your assets, and
to help effect whatever you decide. That's very different from them
protecting your assets.

Lawyers have an important purpose. They (are supposed to) have a large
knowledge of case history, and they know how to navigate the system,
which forms to fill out and how, can usually advise on different
options. They do not take the place of one's brain - the individual
should be as well educated as possible on a topic to gain the greatest
advantage from their lawyer.

Maybe, instead of me going to a lawyer (a ridiculous notion in a
discussion), you should argue more cogently, and back up your "No it
isn't" with convincing citations. Otherwise, you look pretty silly.
And maybe you are getting "good information", but it's sure not
filtering through to this thread. Consider this - suppose I actually
did go to a lawyer and reported back, "Hey I did ask a copyright
lawyer, and he supported my contention." Will you all of a sudden say,
"Oh, OK, you must be right." Hardly. Proof by authority went out the
door in high school.

You tell me I'm not getting it right. But you don't back this up with
a shred of convincing argument. "He said, she said" when there is no
evidence of a deep understanding isn't worth diddly. For example, you
said I misinterpreted the library info. I provided a relevant link.
You said it doesn't apply and ask me instead to believe something that
an alleged expert told you some time ago. Argument by ignoring what
the other person says also went out the door a long time ago.

A year ago I got a letter from a bank's law firm, a specialist in IP
(intellectual property). They wanted to take away from me a domain
name I had registered in good faith. They told me that I was in
serious violation of a couple of laws. Now if you reasearch this area,
you'll find that the law strongly favours the plaintiff in these types
of cases. I did my research - internet reasearch, no less - and wrote
back. This time I got back a letter from a senior partner in the firm
affirming that I was in violation of the law (not even suggesting that
I might be, but saying outright that I was). I sent back another
letter and haven't heard from them since. Nor have I changed what I'm
doing with my domain. Now, do you figure that the bank got their
money's worth from that law firm specializing in IP? I'm guessing they
actually paid for that "good information" and got a "sorry" for it.
But because my situation had some novel elements in it, I subsequently
went to the EFF and got pointed to a law firm which did back me up on
it. In doing so, I found that the research I had done was pretty well
spot on. Oh yea, and the lawyer I presented my case to gave me plenty
of "good information."

The point is to say that the internet is actually a very useful source
of research. While I don't advocate that it be used in place of a
lawyer, it is certainly reasonable to do reasearch via the internet
(should I even need to point this out in 2006?) in forming opinions and
in preparing to present one's case to a lawyer.

I'm just thinking that maybe when people are attempting to learn PHP,
we should just tell them, "Go to a PHP professional." Clearly, that
person will do better than a dabbler who is asking for help. Yea,
people really shouldn't practise programming if they haven't been
properly trained. They will do all sorts of horrible things and ignore
industry standards and maybe even use eval.

The one thing we seem to agree on is that the OP does have some dicey
IP concerns and it would behoove him to gain some clarity on those
issues.

Csaba

Oh, and "My dad is bigger than your dad" arguments are passe, too.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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_wi...aty-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_...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.
Jul 26 '06 #18

P: n/a
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
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.
>>
You could also sign up to use their API and read the terms and conditions.

They are pretty specific on exactly the issue being discussed.
--
Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
(Ken)nneth@(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)
Jul 27 '06 #19

P: n/a
Csaba Gabor wrote:
You seem to be getting confused about what I want. I don't want the
kind of "good information" that you are talking about. What I do want
is to be able to form an informed opinion. That's what people all over
the world do. They don't pay a copyright lawyer hundreds of dollars
for an opionion on whether they may make a photocopy or not. What they
do is to discuss it with others, read about it, and form an opinion on
their own, whether or not it complies with actual law. It's not just
about copyright law, it's about all issues.
They do if they want accurate information. Anything else can get you in
serious legal trouble.
Furthermore, here's a not oft mentioned statistic: in 50% of court
cases with a decision, one side is not doing as well as they expected
(as in, they lose). That is to say, the information from those lawyers
was not "good information" since it did not sustain their case. Legal
advice may or may not be correct. You say that it is the job of your
lawyers to protect your assets. You might want to review your contract
and ask them to do some more educating of you because that's not their
job. If your assets become lost in a court case, you figure your
lawyers are on the hook? Not hardly. The job of your lawyers is to
advise you as to how they think YOU could best protect your assets, and
to help effect whatever you decide. That's very different from them
protecting your assets.
I doubt that. I suspect much more than 50% don't get their way. Civil
cases are not generally "all or nothing".
And no, my attorneys are not on the hook if I lose a court case. But
they ARE on the hook if they give me bad legal advice. They have a
legal obligation to give me good advice. It doesn't mean I'll win every
case. But it does mean they give me good, informed legal advice -
something you won't find on the Internet.
Lawyers have an important purpose. They (are supposed to) have a large
knowledge of case history, and they know how to navigate the system,
which forms to fill out and how, can usually advise on different
options. They do not take the place of one's brain - the individual
should be as well educated as possible on a topic to gain the greatest
advantage from their lawyer.
If that's all you think lawyers do, I'm sorry for you. It is their job
to THINK - in legal terms. Not only provide information on previous
cases, but help interpret the law and precedents as they apply to YOUR
circumstances. This is their LEGAL OBLIGATION.
Maybe, instead of me going to a lawyer (a ridiculous notion in a
discussion), you should argue more cogently, and back up your "No it
isn't" with convincing citations. Otherwise, you look pretty silly.
And maybe you are getting "good information", but it's sure not
filtering through to this thread. Consider this - suppose I actually
did go to a lawyer and reported back, "Hey I did ask a copyright
lawyer, and he supported my contention." Will you all of a sudden say,
"Oh, OK, you must be right." Hardly. Proof by authority went out the
door in high school.
Not at all ridiculous. Trying to get legal information from the
Internet is ridiculous, however.

I really don't care if you think I "look silly" or not. It's not my job
to educate you on legal issues. And quite frankly, I really don't give
a damn if you get your arse in a trouble because you took cues from what
you found on the Internet. You deserve it.
You tell me I'm not getting it right. But you don't back this up with
a shred of convincing argument. "He said, she said" when there is no
evidence of a deep understanding isn't worth diddly. For example, you
said I misinterpreted the library info. I provided a relevant link.
You said it doesn't apply and ask me instead to believe something that
an alleged expert told you some time ago. Argument by ignoring what
the other person says also went out the door a long time ago.
I did. I told you to get good advice - from a copyright attorney. You
just refuse to follow it. But then fools don't take good advice.
A year ago I got a letter from a bank's law firm, a specialist in IP
(intellectual property). They wanted to take away from me a domain
name I had registered in good faith. They told me that I was in
serious violation of a couple of laws. Now if you reasearch this area,
you'll find that the law strongly favours the plaintiff in these types
of cases. I did my research - internet reasearch, no less - and wrote
back. This time I got back a letter from a senior partner in the firm
affirming that I was in violation of the law (not even suggesting that
I might be, but saying outright that I was). I sent back another
letter and haven't heard from them since. Nor have I changed what I'm
doing with my domain. Now, do you figure that the bank got their
money's worth from that law firm specializing in IP? I'm guessing they
actually paid for that "good information" and got a "sorry" for it.
But because my situation had some novel elements in it, I subsequently
went to the EFF and got pointed to a law firm which did back me up on
it. In doing so, I found that the research I had done was pretty well
spot on. Oh yea, and the lawyer I presented my case to gave me plenty
of "good information."
Not knowing the details, I couldn't say. Nor do I care. If I got one
of these from a bank, I would turn it over to my copyright attorney's
firm (although my copyright attorney doesn't handle trademark law,
others in his firm do).

The point is to say that the internet is actually a very useful source
of research. While I don't advocate that it be used in place of a
lawyer, it is certainly reasonable to do reasearch via the internet
(should I even need to point this out in 2006?) in forming opinions and
in preparing to present one's case to a lawyer.
But you are advocating its use in the place of an attorney.
I'm just thinking that maybe when people are attempting to learn PHP,
we should just tell them, "Go to a PHP professional." Clearly, that
person will do better than a dabbler who is asking for help. Yea,
people really shouldn't practise programming if they haven't been
properly trained. They will do all sorts of horrible things and ignore
industry standards and maybe even use eval.
Learning PHP is much different than interpreting the law. If you can't
see the difference, you're an even bigger fool than I previously thought.
The one thing we seem to agree on is that the OP does have some dicey
IP concerns and it would behoove him to gain some clarity on those
issues.

Csaba
And learn not to top post. This newsgroup uses bottom posting or merged
posting (like I did here) as it's standard.
Oh, and "My dad is bigger than your dad" arguments are passe, too.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>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_wi...aty-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_...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.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jul 27 '06 #20

P: n/a
Kenneth Downs wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>>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.


You could also sign up to use their API and read the terms and conditions.

They are pretty specific on exactly the issue being discussed.
Yes, and still open to interpret ion. It was, after all, written by
lawyers! :-)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jul 27 '06 #21

P: n/a
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Csaba Gabor wrote:
You seem to be getting confused about what I want. I don't want the
kind of "good information" that you are talking about. What I do want
is to be able to form an informed opinion. That's what people all over
the world do. They don't pay a copyright lawyer hundreds of dollars
for an opionion on whether they may make a photocopy or not. What they
do is to discuss it with others, read about it, and form an opinion on
their own, whether or not it complies with actual law. It's not just
about copyright law, it's about all issues.

They do if they want accurate information. Anything else can get you in
serious legal trouble.
This is a non sequitur. I am talking about how people form opinions on
issues from copyright to foreign policy to abortion. People form
opinions on the basis of discussions with others, and on the basis of
what they read and hear. They do not, as a general rule, pay lots of
money to do this (maybe they'll buy a book or take a course), and it
would not be cost effective.

Furthermore, here's a not oft mentioned statistic: in 50% of court
cases with a decision, one side is not doing as well as they expected
(as in, they lose). That is to say, the information from those lawyers
was not "good information" since it did not sustain their case. Legal
advice may or may not be correct. You say that it is the job of your
lawyers to protect your assets. You might want to review your contract
and ask them to do some more educating of you because that's not their
job. If your assets become lost in a court case, you figure your
lawyers are on the hook? Not hardly. The job of your lawyers is to
advise you as to how they think YOU could best protect your assets, and
to help effect whatever you decide. That's very different from them
protecting your assets.

I doubt that. I suspect much more than 50% don't get their way. Civil
cases are not generally "all or nothing".
You doubt what? What I wrote does not mean that exactly 50% don't get
their way. It means that at least 50% don't get their way.
And no, my attorneys are not on the hook if I lose a court case. But
they ARE on the hook if they give me bad legal advice. They have a
legal obligation to give me good advice.
Really? In the first place, how in the world would you ever know, if
your ONLY source of "good" information is the people feeding you this
same advice?
It doesn't mean I'll win every
case. But it does mean they give me good, informed legal advice -
something you won't find on the Internet.
Secondly, suppose, even, that they were to give you bad legal advice.
Whatever would you do? It's exceptionally hard to show that advice in
this context is bad, when, after all, a lawyer could say, "it might
have worked". Have you ever heard or read about a lawyer being
successfully sued for bad legal advice? Hint: disbarment.

Lawyers have an important purpose. They (are supposed to) have a large
knowledge of case history, and they know how to navigate the system,
which forms to fill out and how, can usually advise on different
options. They do not take the place of one's brain - the individual
should be as well educated as possible on a topic to gain the greatest
advantage from their lawyer.

If that's all you think lawyers do, I'm sorry for you.
If that's all you think I think lawyers do, I'm sorry for you. There
is no indication that that is all I meant.
It is their job
to THINK - in legal terms. Not only provide information on previous
cases, but help interpret the law and precedents as they apply to YOUR
circumstances. This is their LEGAL OBLIGATION.
Their LEGAL OBLIGATION? What does that mean, exactly? In other words,
what are the consequences if the legal obligation is not met? And just
as importantly, how would you go about showing it? Seems to me that
the requirement for meeting this bar, according to how you have put it,
is exceptionally low.

....
Not at all ridiculous. Trying to get legal information from the
Internet is ridiculous, however.
You are incorrect. Here, for example, is a concrete situation: There
are a lot of disputes about domain names (and if you think it's
expensive here, it costs 2000 euros to dispute a single .eu domain).
The past decisions that panels made are on the net to be read (for
example,
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...0400-0599.html) -
not just the results but the text of the decision (that is, the
reasoning) that the panel used. This information is spot on because
these are the actual decisions. It's not advice to the reader - they
are decisions about other persons' cases - but it is certainly legal
information. One may not agree with the reasoning, one may not even
understand it correctly, but it is accurate and very valid for forming
opinions (both about the process and about how to navigate the
process). Whether these opinions are correct or not (to the extent
that opinions have correctness) is another matter which I have not been
addressing. If one were to have an actual domain name dispute, then it
could be useful to consult a lawyer.

It might even be useful to consult a lawyer before getting the domain
name, but one runs into the issue of diminishing returns. If one is
performing a standard action, then the liklihood of running into
trouble from that one action is small, so the expected value of return
of going to a lawyer is negative. However, if the action is a priori
suspect or has a liklihood of having problems associated with it (and
the only basis for that is upon the opinions formed), then going to a
lawyer preemptively may be a very useful action since it could save a
lot of trouble in the future. Especially if there is a high cost
associated with being wrong.

You tell me I'm not getting it right. But you don't back this up with
a shred of convincing argument. "He said, she said" when there is no
....
I did. I told you to get good advice - from a copyright attorney. You
just refuse to follow it. But then fools don't take good advice.
Another non sequitur. I am not the OP. Got it? So why do you keep
spewing this? I have no interest and no need to go to a copyright
lawyer. I'm not the one with the issue. Your "advice" might serve the
OP well, but it is bad advice in this context. It's like having a
discussion about programming and then someone chimes in, "Take my
advice: drink water." It's just not relevant.

....
The point is to say that the internet is actually a very useful source
of research. While I don't advocate that it be used in place of a
lawyer, it is certainly reasonable to do reasearch via the internet
(should I even need to point this out in 2006?) in forming opinions and
in preparing to present one's case to a lawyer.
But you are advocating its use in the place of an attorney.
No, I am not. I am advocating its use to gather information and form
opinions on various topics.
And learn not to top post. This newsgroup uses bottom posting or merged
posting (like I did here) as it's standard.
It's standard to argue coherently and to only quote the relevant part
of what one replies to. Since your responses, in general, did not
address the text I wrote, summary fashion was more appropriate.

And learn not to post. Two posts ago you wrote not once, not twice,
but three times that you would not continue this conversation. I'm
hoping this time you'll remember to keep your word:
No, it's not. I will not continue it here.
....
I will not continue this conversation.
....
And I will not continue this discussion.
Aug 24 '06 #22

P: n/a
Csaba Gabor wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>Csaba Gabor wrote:
>>>You seem to be getting confused about what I want. I don't want the
kind of "good information" that you are talking about. What I do want
is to be able to form an informed opinion. That's what people all over
the world do. They don't pay a copyright lawyer hundreds of dollars
for an opionion on whether they may make a photocopy or not. What they
do is to discuss it with others, read about it, and form an opinion on
their own, whether or not it complies with actual law. It's not just
about copyright law, it's about all issues.

They do if they want accurate information. Anything else can get you in
serious legal trouble.


This is a non sequitur. I am talking about how people form opinions on
issues from copyright to foreign policy to abortion. People form
opinions on the basis of discussions with others, and on the basis of
what they read and hear. They do not, as a general rule, pay lots of
money to do this (maybe they'll buy a book or take a course), and it
would not be cost effective.
And such a conversation has no place in a PHP newsgroup. Please take it
elsewhere. Like the outhouse.

<rest of garbage snipped>

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Aug 24 '06 #23

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.