40 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2025
    1. Opinion and Order. OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. v. Anna's Archive (2:24-cv-00144). District Court, S.D. Ohio.

      Conclusion

      The Court is sympathetic to OCLC's situation: a band of copyright scofflaws cloned WorldCat's hard-earned data, gave it away for free, and then ignored OCLC when it sued them in this Court. But mindful that bad facts sometimes make bad law, the Court requests that an Ohio court intervene before this Court makes any new state tort, contract, property, or criminal law.

      The Court resolves to CERTIFY the novel Ohio-law issues identified above to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Plaintiff's counsel and Matienzo's counsel are ORDERED to propose an order containing all the information Ohio Supreme Court Practice Rule 9. 02 requires by April 11, 2025. The parties may file their proposed orders separately, or, if they so choose, they may file one joint proposed order. The Court will finalize a certification order afterward.

      OCLC's motion for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. See Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mut. ) Ins., 286 F. Supp. 3d 919, 928-29 (M. D. Tenn. 2017) (adopting this same disposition). Because the answers to the certified questions may also determine Matienzo's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ECF No. 21, the Court DENIES without prejudice that motion too. See id. The Court invites the parties to reraise their motions after the certification proceeding. See id.

      The Court also grants OCLC leave to amend its Complaint to correct any of the above-identified pleading deficiencies.

  2. Jun 2024
  3. Mar 2024
    1. By hacking WorldCat.org, scraping and harvesting OCLC’s valuable WorldCat

      Complain equates “hacking” with “scraping and harvesting”

      This is a matter of some debate—notably the recent LLM web scraping cases.

  4. Nov 2022
  5. Oct 2022
  6. Apr 2022
  7. Nov 2021
  8. Jul 2020
  9. Jun 2020
  10. May 2020
    1. Facebook began as a (horny) web scraping project, as did Google and all other search engines.

      Facebook... errrr.

    2. Scrapism

      Trying to understand how to scrape data (damn I hate that phrase... it makes me thinnk of some kind of test for colon cancer or something). This pertains to #clubcovid.

  11. Jul 2018
  12. Apr 2018
    1. "The problem: the automated web browsing tools they want to use (commonly called “web scrapers”) are prohibited by the targeted websites’ terms of service, and the CFAA has been interpreted by some courts as making violations of terms of service a crime."

    2. Good news for anyone who uses the Internet as a source of information: A district court in Washington, D.C. has ruled that using automated tools to access publicly available information on the open web is not a computer crime
    1. Pingback: Legality of Extracting Publicly Available User-Generated Content – PromptCloud Pingback: How to Scrape Facebook Posts for Free Content Ideas Pingback: Facebook data harvesting—what you need to know (From Phys.org) – Peter Schwartz

      important readings

    2. Google doesn’t use the facebook API to scrape facebook; they just scrape it.

      really?

    3. This is an extremely important case to remember. It has implications for all Fb users who want to own their past.

    1. Need proof? In Linkedin v. Doe Defendants, Linkedin is suing between 1-100 people who anonymously scraped their website. And for what reasons are they suing those people? Let's see: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Violation of California Penal Code. Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Breach of contract. Trespass. Misappropriation.

      Linkedin lawsuit -- terrifying

  13. Mar 2018
  14. Sep 2017
    1. First, we view technology evolution as a three-stage cyclical process of adoption, appropriation, and repossession. Users drive adoption. Users and providers alternatively drive appropriation and repossession, as users lead appropriation, while providers react when reclaiming the resulting innova-tions. Second, we identify three appropriation modes—baroquize, creolize, and canni-balize—that represent increasing degrees of power contestation by users. And third, we identify three repossession modes—co-opt, combine, and block—that represent increas-ingly antagonistic reactions by providers and mirror users’ appropriation strategies.

      El documento como árbol es una convención fija inicial, para lograr cierto movimiento en el desarrollo de la plataforma y las dinámicas alrededor de la misma, pero dicha convención puede ser móvil después (como se indicaba en el primer texto sobre Grafoscopio). Textos rizomáticos o laberínticos como los presentados en la literatura latinoamericana (Cortazar, Borges) podrían ser construidos con Grafoscopio una vez la convención inicial se mueva. Esto implicaría pasar por las sucesivas fases e incluso "canibalizar" Grafoscopio al final, con la ventaja de que las tensiones entre proveedores y usuarios no son tan fuertes, pues son los usuarios los que se están proveyendo de tecnología a sí mismos y cambiándola por el camino. Los lugares de tensión ocurren cuando se manifiesta el caracter político de sus usos, por ejemplo haciendo web scrapping que viola los contenidos de los términos de uso de un sitio web (citar caso de Twitter).

    Tags

    Annotators

  15. Jul 2017
    1. We shouldn’t have to create open data by scraping websites. This information should be already available, easily accessed and provided in a machine-readable format from the original providers, be they city councils or transportation companies. However, until there’s another option, we’ll always have scraping.