Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kafen" data-source="post: 5196384" data-attributes="member: 11273">*bows to Masterplan devs* They are a smart bunch. The nearest match for a case involves an airline that sends  a series of C&D letters. The software company refuses to comply. In this case, the product for sale is the primary gateway along with several refusals on the part of the software company to work with the airline. Can they take action if Masterplan removes the data scraper feature and does not pay? Hmmm... WOTC has to sue in Texas for this case to apply. *recalls something about WOTC terms stating that Washington state is their place where they litigate.*There is an alternative case that depends on CFAA which allows for damages to be an issue. Masterplan has to scrape the data and host the information, though. The third 'best' chance comes up from users here, WOTC can claim server load is an issue. However, one crawl is not server damaging. Keep in mind, the above three* only apply to scrapers. I know there is a quaint little law site that covers part of it if people want the long version. Anywho, WOTC has to pick which one applies. Chances are, I would bet it's the first aspect if they want to attack the scraper code. If it's the case, WOTC faces two points. First off, Masterplan no longer scrapes the data. Second, it is non commercial which gives zero room to make "intentional damage claim" which is at the heart of the airline claim. Of all the people in the topic, you are the only one that asks the right question. It's why I bow to the  devs of Masterplan. As a free piece of software, the act of compliance shows they are willing to work with WOTC. It goes a long way towards gutting  any future claims that WOTC stands to make if they decide to go along the airline route as it shows that they intend no harm in this version. Do I continue to think that Masterplan 8.8 is valid? Yes, but... I like the route they took. Gut the most obvious trigger conditions for a potential claim and let WOTC deal with copyright enforcement. It's why I do not buy into the copyright claims of people. The Copyright Act does not support such claims against scrapers ( at this time - who knows in the future ).*I am fairly sure the three complaints are the most common ones cited.</blockquote>

Verification