[walshemj]

Yep and as I worked on sites for a big Audi dealer in the past they would not be happy giving stuff to scrapers as opposed to getting the lead direct.

BTW for information in the UK a lead for our Audi B2C site was worth around £60.

Sounds dodgy from a Google perspective republishing other peoples content - though I know that Google looked at doing a niche car product - like they have with hotels etc so might not be a viable long term business.

[darkarmani]

> Sounds dodgy from a Google perspective republishing other peoples content

Actually, it is just publishing compiled facts. It might violate the ToS, but it probably doesn't violate copyright.

[ajw0100]

Do you know of any good articles demonstrating the repercussions of violating a ToS vs. violating a copyright?

I'm guessing violating a copyright is more likely to result in aggressive legal action whereas a ToS violation would just get you banned from the service or sent some sort of cease and desist.

[walshemj]

yeah its a bit of a grey area I suspect that the big players don't want to be the first one to start legal proceedings - they want some one else to pull the trigger.

I used to work for Reed Elsevier and there was rampant scrapeing and plagiarizing going on usually to create crappy MFA sites or to insert middlemen (offering no social value) into the job board market.

I possibly could see EU based recruitment companies going after indeed - maybe if stepstone are up for a fight.

Matt Cutts whats the deal on allowing indeeds search results into your index I thought you did not like other se results in Googles index