Alex Thompson wrote:
> To both parties, let's not turn this into a brawl. I'm glad K Shea brought this up as I'm a big proponent of using Kodi legally and responsibly. In that spirit, I went back to Zap2It's website and looked into the matter. In my opinion, I do not believe using this script is illegal or even unethical. Here are my reasons.
>
> 1) I could not find any advertising anywhere on the website, and specifically on the TV listings page. So retrieving the data without a browser does not circumvent a revenue stream.
> 2) I am able to view full listings for my local area without being logged in. I suspect my zip code is contained in a browser cookie, but the point is that the data is publicly available and not behind a paywall or registration. Registration does allow me to designate my favorites, which drives the script. But the mode of transmission does not alter anything about this arrangement.
> 3) The script only does what I could do myself, just faster. This is a weak point by itself, but it strengthens the overall argument in conjunction with the other two points.
>
> I tried to find a "Terms of Service" for further research, but had no luck. I did notice that Gracenote, the parent company, is in turn owned by Nielsen. With that in mind, revenue stream for the site could be subsidized by viewing pattern data (Nielsen's traditional territory) provided by registered users and anonymous traffic to the site. Retrieving the data using zap2xml does not deny the company either of these data points. True, they have not provided an API themselves, but concluding that the absence of such a route proves, or even indicates, it's prohibition commits the logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance" (please note, that was not an insult - that's simply what the logical fallacy is called). There could be any number of reasons they don't provide it. Perhaps they don't want to spend the time and labor costs to write it up? Who knows?
>
> Lastly, I want to address the case of Aaron Swartz which you mention. I'm not intimately familiar with the details, but from what I have read, in his case the data in question was retrieved from a closed, private system. That is not the case here (see Item #2 above). Furthermore, the prosecution's case was that beyond accessing the site in the manner he did (placing a laptop and external hard drive in a restricted wiring closet in MIT's basement, and hiding it under a cardboard box), his intent was to disseminate this controlled information across P2P sites without the consent of the controller. None of that is the case here.
>
> I do appreciate the heads-up though. It is always good to consider not just the legality, but also the spirit in which we leverage technology.
If you followed the links through to Gracenote's site, they have a developer FAQ related to their video services (which includes TV listings). There it is indicated that registration and an API key is needed to programmatically access their information.
Also, the "updating" of the Zap2It site seems to have removed the terms of use that was present on their site within the last 6 months. Still, I feel that the terms covering all of Gracenote's data and IP equally apply to Zap2It, and given the media/content owning-friendly nature of the current US legal system, I'm sure the courts would agree at present. However, since the TOS are no longer present on the Zap2It site, I can see how the question is now open to a more liberal interpretation.
With regards to Swartz: while it was perhaps a "closed" system, the data he was accessing was technically the property of the People of the US, since they were court records stored in the PACER system. As such, his access to the data was technically within his rights; Gracenote's data is their private property and therefore subject to enforceable protections. Again, your interpretation may vary, but still something to keep in mind when constructing computer systems that access questionably "open" data.