A US district judge, William Alsup, has dismissed the lawsuit filed by X Corp (formerly Twitter) against Bright Data, a data-scraping company accused of improperly accessing X systems and selling data without permission. The judge ruled that X Corp’s claims were invalid and failed to provide supporting evidence.
The lawsuit was filed by X Corp to stop Bright Data from scraping and selling X data to academic institutes and businesses, including Fortune 500 companies. X argued that companies like Bright Data should have to pay to access public data posted by X users. However, Judge Alsup rejected this argument, stating that X failed to state a claim and that scraping and selling data is preempted by federal copyright law.
One of the key points raised by Judge Alsup was the tension between X’s desire to control user data and its reliance on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides safe harbor protection for online platforms. If X Corp owned the data, it could argue for exclusive control, but it would lose safe harbor protection. Alsup highlighted that X Corp wants to “keep its safe harbors yet exercise a copyright owner’s right to exclude,” which would disrupt the balance Congress struck between copyright owners and the public domain.
Judge Alsup warned that granting X’s request would result in X creating its private copyright system that conflicts with the actual copyright system enacted by Congress. This would have significant implications for the accessibility and use of public data. He argued that public data should be governed by the Copyright Act rather than conflicting terms set by online platforms.
Bright Data CEO, Or Lenchner, hailed the court’s decision, stating that the ruling has “profound implications in business, research, training of AI models, and beyond.” Lenchner emphasized that ethical scraping practices can coexist with legitimate business use and social good initiatives. He noted that companies attempting to control public data for profit will not prevail in legal battles.
However, X has the opportunity to amend its complaint and appeal the decision. X’s case may be strengthened if it can demonstrate damages and show that Bright Data’s scraping interfered with its services or harmed X users. Nonetheless, as Judge Alsup noted, X’s arguments currently appear weak, and its terms of service clearly state that users own their content.
Judge Alsup also expressed concerns that X’s lawsuit could have undermined the fair use provision of the Copyright Act. By attempting to exclude Bright Data from accessing public X posts owned by X users, X effectively limited fair use rights. Alsup argued that only by paying X Corp could Bright Data, its customers, and other X users freely reproduce, adapt, distribute, and display the content. This would have negatively affected the ability to make fair use of copyrighted material.
By dismissing the complaint, Judge Alsup prevented potential consequences for the internet, such as the creation of information monopolies. He cited a previous appeals court ruling that warned against giving social media companies free rein to decide who can collect and use data, as it risks creating monopolies that go against the public interest.
This victory for Bright Data follows a similar lawsuit brought by Meta (formerly Facebook) over the scraping of public Facebook and Instagram data. Bright Data’s CEO sees these lawsuits as attempts by conglomerates to discourage the collection of public data and consolidate ownership of user-generated content. The courts recognize the risks of information monopolies and the ownership of the internet.
Overall, Judge Alsup’s decision highlights the complex legal issues surrounding the use and ownership of public data. It emphasizes the importance of striking a balance between copyright protection and the accessibility of information for legitimate purposes. Additionally, the ruling underscores the need for clearer regulations that govern data scraping practices to avoid legal disputes in the future.
Source link
