[Alupis]

I'm sorry but I strongly believe you are incorrect.

I could make a paid HN aggregator... legally. So long as I provided proper attribution.

The OP provided attribution. The OP never claimed the data was his. The entire purpose was to aggregate the schools data into an easily accessible format for students.

Cultural norms or not, the OP violated no laws. It's pretty plain and simple.

Yes, the school could play games and break this parser if they decided. Worse has been done before. It would be a teachable moment... but not for the reasons you seem to be concluding.

[pistle]

You can believe to any degree you like, but there would be no concern about "fair use" in the copyright law lexicon if it only took "proper attribution" to re-purpose others' content for commercial or non-commercial use. The content of the school's site is quite likely copyrighted and they can control the form and location of copies of their content/data.

Try this... Play an artist's song, in its entirety, on a radio station. Tell the audience where that song came from. Play another song... attribute. Never pay ASCAP license fees... see how long you are on the air.

Or... copy/paste the entirety of a newly released book to your tumblr. Attribute accordingly. No worries, right?

The original creator has copyright. They license or transfer it, frequently contractually, to publishers who control the rights to how copies of the material may be created and distributed.

There are fair uses for portions and/or derivatives of content, but this use would not fall into those categories. Let's not forget that the kid sought and was denied permission for his app. He just assumed that silence in his time window implied permission. That's not nearly long enough for copyright to expire.

Also, they could feasibly be dicks and say that his viewstate parser was a copyright circumvention technique putting him in the crosshairs of DMCA 1201 - Circumvension of Copyright Measures.

So, you are plainly and simply rejecting a lot of readily available information on well-understood restrictions around copying other peoples' content.

Maybe you are confused with Creative Commons licensing or something?

[Alupis]

We may be arguing apples and oranges here.

The OP did not subvert anyone's revenue model.

Simply aggregating data is not violating any copyright laws nor protections. If so... most news sites would be in serious trouble. The OP was simply aggregating data into an easily accessible format for students.

The original creator retains copyright, but they can't prevent someone from linking to nor providing access to publicly accessibly information. If they truly want nobody to have access in this manor, they would have to block public access or restrict it in some form.

To use your book example. If the copyright holder of a new book posted the text in full on their website with no restrictions or payment necessary, and I reposted that text, provided attribution and a method to access the original content, then I would not be in violation of any law.

[hueving]

>The OP did not subvert anyone's revenue model.

Irrelevant. Saying "you weren't making money off of it so I decided to copy it and do so", isn't a valid argument.

>Simply aggregating data is not violating any copyright laws nor protections.

Yes it is. No high-traffic news site does this. Maybe you are confusing this with news sites that pay for the AP feed and the right to do so?

>To use your book example. If the copyright holder of a new book posted the text in full on their website with no restrictions or payment necessary, and I reposted that text, provided attribution and a method to access the original content, then I would not be in violation of any law.

Nope, you are still violating the copyright unless they explicitly give permission to repost it. You are conflating someone deciding to charge for something and someone keeping the right to prevent redistribution. They are very different things.

A copyright is automatic in the US. You have to explicitly license content with something like the creative commons license before people can safely copy things and repost them.

[pistle]

We may be arguing facts and opinions.

It has nothing to due with revenue. Note my non-commercial language above.

If you write something and present it anywhere that copyright is implied or described, you, as the content creator, maintain control of your work. If someone scrapes it and re-presents it, even with proper attribution and you have not provided an explicit license, you can still require the third party to remove, revoke, forfeit, and/or destroy the copy of your content.

Posting their book, in full, online would not relinquish the author's copyright. They have to pretty explicitly grant license for other uses. See Creative Commons licenses. Those are pretty loose and they only require attribution.

And what's with all this method of access stuff now? I thought it was JUST proper attribution. Now you need to provide a method of access too? You're making this worse.