Web scraping for me, but not for thee (blog.ericgoldman.org)

Article summary

The article discusses the hypocrisy of large companies like Meta and Microsoft, which prohibit web scraping on their own properties while scraping data from other companies' properties. This is made possible by a shift from property law to contract law, allowing companies to define their rights in online data through terms of use agreements. The article argues that this creates a system where companies can invent intellectual property rights through online contracts, which can be enforced through breach of contract claims. This leads to a lack of consistency and intellectual honesty in the way companies approach web scraping.

Main themes

• web scraping
• contract law
• property rights
• corporate hypocrisy
• online data ownership
• ad blockers
• legal clarity
• competition and self-interest

What commenters say

• Some argue that the US legal system is broken, leading to corporations using contract law to route around civil litigation and protect their interests.
• Others believe that companies are simply acting in their own self-interest and that this is not hypocrisy, but rather a natural result of competition.
• There is a need for legal clarity on web scraping, particularly for smaller players who may not have the resources to navigate the complex legal landscape.
• The use of ad blockers and other technologies to modify or block web content is seen as a morally justifiable response to the proliferation of ads and tracking on the web.
• Some commenters argue that the concept of property rights in online data is flawed and that companies should not be able to claim ownership of user-generated content.
• Others propose that customers should have their own contract of adhesion to level the playing field and protect their rights.
• The role of courts in shaping the law around web scraping is seen as crucial, with some arguing that they should prioritize public interest over corporate interests.
• The idea of a 'right to scrape' is proposed as a potential solution to the current legal uncertainty and inconsistency.