>It's clear that you are not a lawyer

It should be, because I've stated it probably 6 times in this thread.

>someone just overly reacting to perceived legal liabilities by simply generalizing court cases and attempting to reach a conclusion that tries to fit everyone.

So for the seventh time, I'm not a lawyer, but isn't this how it works when questions about legality are posed? It's always based on the relevant statutes and the case law interpreting and applying those statutes. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm glad you're not worried about someone looking at the case law and making a generalization about how it applies to the field.

If you want specific (i.e., non-generalized) legal information, you always need to discuss your individual affairs with a licensed attorney who is knowledgeable in the field and jurisdictions in which you'll be operating.

In practical terms, web scraping is usually illegal in the United States. In this case, that doesn't mean there's a law that says "web scraping is illegal", it means that there is a small group of laws, which, taken together, make it virtually impossible to scrape web pages with confidence that you're not getting exposed to potentially serious legal liability. Note that "illegal" is not the same as "criminal", but that the CFAA does provide for criminal penalties (and Aaron Swartz was being prosecuted under them for scraping research papers out of an academic database).

>Businesses that utilize web scraping to achieve business goals at a direct expense of another business will get you in trouble not because of web scraping but simply trying to create competition.

You're talking about the likelihood that a business will get sued by someone. That's great, but it doesn't change the legal status of the activity that someone is unlikely to sue you for.

My business did not directly compete with anyone. Everyone thought it primarily helped the data sources we used. People always told me that they were shocked that the company that was making the threat was upset about it. Even my lawyer said it seemed unusual and couldn't figure out what their underlying motive was.

The stakes are an important consideration, but yes, it is important to consider the impact if you do get sued/threatened by an unlikely plaintiff.

>3Taps received notices beyond just IP ban (this alone does not set enough of a context)

The 3Taps ruling casts doubt on the suggestion that an IP ban is itself insufficient notice. That issue hasn't been decided directly afaik, but the reasonable conclusion, if you are getting a 403 or a page that explicitly informs you your IP has been banned when you access a site, is that they are trying to keep you out and that further access likely violates the CFAA.

>3Taps had enough of a financial motivation on the line to put out their neck for their customer, PadMapper. Pretty fucking stupid if you ask me, no one customer is worth risking the entirety of your business operation.

That's definitely the risky side of the equation. The alternative side was that they'd win and be allowed to retain access to one of the largest data sources on the internet, and preferably set a precedent that allowed them to continue to scrape big data sources without concern moving forward. That gamble clearly did not pay off for them, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a reasonable gamble to take.

>It's far more likely that the law exists to serve those who exploit it to protect their business interests.

I agree, but I don't see how it's relevant. Lots of people believe that it's beneficial to their business interests to use the legal system to bully people who can't afford to stand up for themselves. Uh, congrats to them I guess? Why are you saying this like it's a normal thing? We should take steps to minimize the surface area that can be used for that.

If you're suggesting there is a small handful of bad guys to whom these laws need to apply, that's fine and I actually agree with you, but that means we need to fine-tune the law so that it only covers the bad guys, not virtually everyone if someone you're scraping is having a bad day.

You keep fighting this fight pretending like I'm saying something that's incorrect, and then you just come back and say that it doesn't matter because a) some people who scrape have not been sued; and b) people who start scraping business may not get sued if they adhere to the requests of those who politely ask them to stop. That's great, but it's neither here nor there. This is about what the law is, not whether you're going to be sued personally.

>Generalizing and extrapolating based on a few court cases with their own dynamic set of variables and exceptions as fact is dangerous advice.

It's all anyone can do when you're dealing with an emerging area of law, afaik.

>I just want to warn people reading your comments not to take it word for word as the reality is far far less legally hostile-you are too small for people to go after and not an existential threat to the target website.

Yes, this is another thing I've stated multiple times. You probably won't get anyone mad enough at you to sue you. But you should know where you stand if you do. And you should try to fix the law in the meantime.

>The argument that web scraping puts strain on web servers is a pretty laughable defense.

Plaintiffs use this argument all the time and get injunctions filed on that basis regularly. Even if the defendant is not disruptive, judges say they need to issue the injunction or it will invite a pile-on effect that will be disruptive. Thus, they grant an injunction under a trespass to chattels doctrine, generally putting legal force behind a C&D.

>3taps fucked themselves because they took money AND they put their neck out for their customer.

3taps fucked themselves only because they tried to stand up and win the case. Perhaps it would've been better for them to try to lobby Congress instead and get the law transformed into something semi-reasonable, though it's likely they recognized the futility in that.

>That's the lesson here, don't risk your entire business for one customer. It's not fair to the rest of your customer base.

It seems like the lesson is that web scraping is legally precarious, and that if you're not careful about it, you can end up in a lot of hot water.

You keep acting like that's an absurd conclusion, but not really showing anything to discount the onerous outcomes that entrepreneurs in this space have faced. 3Taps is not the only case where this has been addressed.

In Facebook v. Power Ventures, the corporate veil was pierced and the entrepreneur was left with $3 million in personal liability, all for trying to create software that made it easy for a user to save their own data only out of Facebook. Facebook acknowledged that it did not have any copyright interest allowing it to forbid Power from accessing that data specifically, but they continued to pursue copyright claims based on the RAM copy of the Facebook site from which the content was extracted.

The point is that the current law makes scraping a perilous exercise. Perhaps you won't have problems, but that's probably only the case if a) you stay so small no one will ever target you or b) you know the law and you take extra precautions to protect your business so that any accusations of wrongdoing are clearly invalid against current law. Scrapinghub is trying to do this, but IMO it's insufficient if they get an aggressive/hostile litigant.

The truth is that Scrapinghub et al are on the precipice and they're going to stay there until precedent changes (likely through a SCOTUS override, particularly one overturning the RAM copy doctrine, which is probably plausible, and one putting constraints on the ability to revoke access to public web sites under the CFAA, which is probably not) or until the law changes. They only need to get hit with one well-placed lawsuit and they'll be goners.

You can argue til the cows come home about how they won't get sued because they stop once they get a C&D, but that's not necessarily true, and that doesn't fix the laws around scraping.