WPCc= <#X!E_QxeJ#"f$2lJ! mǺ}sϴ$0O? ɷ{_0gup+t> bΙ΀#_.o2_ ~uNj/Fjh82X@ua0sa=0WEN}V~ެ#vuo A8J0"2dxwLQN \[XkϏGʟ2!"A縅DhiC_%/" W Ԍru^rUv ǭW IX8_D$֕ oɃJe-F"OuA"s-g%q^7j2 iC2gsZF(5s#)-״P޶ްJ*>21=Xo!\F?Ia#N % 0D 0(Y U: 0 UND nT N UF U>. l ^ $ w0 44 H EW fY a[ o mq N 0U 0 0 0 0 0q 0N 0( 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0` 0+ B 0 0 0@ 0 0 0z 0H 0 0 0 0b! 00" 0<O" 0" 0>I# 0v# 0`# 0`]$ 0`$ 0`% 0`}% 08% 0& 02& 0' 0:( 0YO( 0_( 0 ) 0j* 0{+ B*, D/)- D+X- 0- D// 06/ 060 0:0 0:B1 0^|1 0<12U62 0N3 0C`3 0(3 AM3U>4U*V4U04b44UB4 579HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(':2u$ !        0  vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular u$      *    _OftheSouthernDistrictofNewYork,sittingbydesignation.%q8.s u-ry File3|xTABLE A U*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKS<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KS<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KS<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7H(X7  ?Y%2A`Arial?  SX\  `&Times New RomanS7I(X7&  d dG)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7K(X7  ?Y%2A`Arial?  SX\  `&Times New RomanS7I(X7G)2dxd0KS.SampleKS<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKS<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  ԁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5<6X9`(Courier New(O$(2C$ !  ($RUVIA<< c\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial<@9Z+Courier - -  <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi  u$      1    _ZXOXXXTheindividualdefendantsareOlleOlsson,PeterNilsson,  PhilipGormley,AlexandraBernadotte,AndersEricksson,Deborah  Johnson,andStefanNilsson.WereferhereaftertoExploricaand \ theindividualdefendantscollectivelyas"Explorica."#XOXXZXOq# XOXXXO  u$      2    _ZXOXXXAsanexample,thewebsiteaddressforanEFTourtoParis  andGenevaleavingfromBostonishttp://www.eftours.com/  public/browse/browse_detail.asp?CTID=PTG%20V&GW=BOS.Looking \ closelyatthewebsiteaddress,onecandeterminethatthe 2 destinationcodefortheParisandGenevatourisPTG,whilethe X gatewaycodeforBostonisBOS.#XOXXZXOq# XOXXXO _ u      3    ZXOXXXForexample,the"legalnotices"ononefamiliarwebsite  statethat"youmayprintordownloadonecopyofthematerialsor  contentonthissiteonanysinglecomputerforyourpersonal,non \ commercialuse,providedyoukeepintactallcopyrightandother 2 proprietarynotices.Systematicretrievalofdataorothercontent X fromthissitetocreateorcompile,directlyorindirectly,a . collection,compilation,databaseordirectorywithoutwritten   permissionfromAmericaOnlineisprohibited."AOLAnywhereTerms   andConditionsofUse,athttp://www.aol.com/copyright.html(last `  visitedJan.14,2003). !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !XlXXX-XXl     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals-  FortheFirstCircuit   XOX   A') ` dE<` A    XOXX XONo.012001   @ EFCULTURALTRAVELBV,ETAL., K  @Plaintiffs,Appellees,  G  @tt)v.   @!ZEFERCORPORATION, O  @ Defendant,Appellant, K  @88)and  @LLEXPLORICA,INC.,ETAL., S @XX%Defendants. O A') ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS f @x x [Hon.MorrisE.Lasker,  #  *      ׀U.S.DistrictJudge] b A') ` dE<` A     `     h @'Before     @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge, y! Torruella,CircuitJudge, O " andCyr,SeniorCircuitJudge. %!u# A') ` dE<"` A "!%       WilliamA.ZuckerwithwhomScottJ.NathanandGadsbyHannah, #' LLPwereonsupplementalbriefforappellant. $(   JoanA.LukeywithwhomJohnJ.ButtsandHaleandDorrLLP b% ) wereonsupplementalbriefforappellees. 8&!*    '^"+ *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '4#,'4#  SIH(#- b@37648b@SJanuary28,2003 )n$/  RHC)D%0" b@37648 b@ R(H(#1  (  * ! *J&1? Ї  ZXOXX XO[\OY  8]O]XXdd8*,X` XX* ` BOUDIN,ChiefJudge. DefendantZeferCorporation  ("Zefer")seeksreviewofapreliminaryinjunctionprohibitingit x fromusinga"scrapertool"tocollectpricinginformationfromthe $t websiteofplaintiffEFCulturalTravelBV("EF").Thiscourt   earlierupheldtheinjunctionagainstcodefendantExplorica,Inc. |  ("Explorica").EFCulturalTravelBVv.Explorica,Inc.,274F.3d ( x  577(1stCir.2001)("EFI").Thevalidityoftheinjunctionas $  appliedtoZeferwasnotaddressedbecauseZefer'sappealwas   stayedwhenitfiledforbankruptcy,butthestayhasnowbeen ,|  lifted. (  ` EFandExploricaarecompetitorsinthestudenttravel  business.Exploricawasstartedinthespringof2000byseveral 0 formerEFemployeeswhoaimedtocompeteinpartbycopyingEF's , pricesfromEF'swebsiteandsettingExplorica'sownprices  slightlylower.EF'swebsitepermitsavisitortothesiteto 4 searchitstourdatabaseandviewthepricesfortoursmeeting 0 specifiedcriteriasuchasgateway(e.g.,departure)cities,   destinationcities,andtourduration.InJune2000,Explorica 8!" hiredZefer,whichprovidescomputerrelatedexpertise,tobuilda "4$ scrapertoolthatcould"scrape"thepricesfromEF'swebsiteand $& downloadthemintoanExcelspreadsheet. <&!(  ` Ascraper,alsocalleda"robot"or"bot,"isnothing '8#* morethanacomputerprogramthataccessesinformationcontainedin )$, asuccessionofwebpagesstoredontheaccessedcomputer.# XOXXZXO #ZXOXX XOStrictly @+&. speaking,theaccessedinformationisnotthegraphicalinterface  seenbytheuserbutrathertheHTMLsourcecodeavailableto \ anyonewhoviewsthesitethatgeneratesthegraphicalinterface.# XOXXZXOF#ZXOXX XO X Thisinformationisthendownloadedtotheuser'scomputer.The   scraperprogramusedinthiscasewasnotdesignedtocopyallof `  theinformationontheaccessedpages(e.g.,thedescriptionsof  \  thetours),butratheronlythepriceforeachtourthrougheach   possiblegatewaycity. d   ` Zeferbuiltascrapertoolthatscrapedtwoyearsof `  pricingdatafromEF'swebsite.Afterreceivingthepricingdata   fromZefer,Exploricasetitsownpricesforthepublic, h undercuttingEF'spricesanaverageoffivepercent.EFdiscovered d Explorica'suseofthescrapertoolduringdiscoveryinan  unrelatedstatecourtactionbroughtbyExplorica'sPresident l againstEFforbackwages. h  ` EFthensuedZefer,Explorica,andseveralofExplorica's  employeesinfederalcourt.^ #  1      ׀Pertinently,EFsoughtapreliminary p  injunctiononthegroundthatthecopyingviolatedthefederal !l" CopyrightAct,17U.S.C.101etseq.(2000),andvarious "$ provisionsoftheComputerFraudandAbuseAct("CFAA"),18U.S.C. t$& 1030(2000).ThedistrictcourtrefusedtograntEFsummary  &p!( judgmentonitscopyrightclaim,butitdidissueapreliminary  injunctionagainstalldefendantsbasedononeprovisionofthe \ CFAA,rulingthattheuseofthescrapertoolwentbeyondthe X "reasonableexpectations"ofordinaryusers.Thepreliminary   injunctionstatesinteralia: `  8 ` [D]efendantExplorica,Inc.,itsofficers,  \  agents,servants,employees,successorsand  2  assigns,allpersonsactinginconcertor   participationwithExplorica,Inc.,and/or   actingonitsbehalfordirectionare d  preliminarilyenjoinedto...refrain, :  whetherdirectlyorindirectly,fromtheuse `  ofa"scraper"program,oranyothersimilar 6 computertool,toaccessanydatauseableor   necessaryforthecompilationofpricesonor  fromthewebsiteofplaintiffEFCultural h Travelanditsrelatedentities,and/ortheEF > TourDatabase.d` x` x K ` Thedefendantsappealed,butsoonafterbriefingwas  completed,Zeferfiledforbankruptcyanditsappealwas l automaticallystayed.11U.S.C.362(a)(1)(2000).Explorica's h appealwentforwardandinEFIapanelofthiscourtupheldthe  preliminaryinjunctionagainstExplorica.Thepanelheldthatthe p  useofthescrapertoolexceededthedefendants'authorizedaccess !l" toEF'swebsitebecause(accordingtothedistrictcourt'sfindings "$ forthepreliminaryinjunction)accesswasfacilitatedbyuseof t$& confidentialinformationobtainedinviolationofthebroad  &p!( confidentialityagreementsignedbyEF'sformeremployees.EFI, '#*  274F.3dat58284. x)$,  ` OnZefer'sreactivatedappeal,thequestionpresentedis   whetherthepreliminaryinjunctionisproperastoZefer.We \ concludethatitisproperevenastoZefer,whichsignedno X confidentialityagreement,butonrelativelynarrowgrounds.Given   theprospectoffurtherproceedingsthisappealismerelyfroma `  preliminaryinjunctionitishelpfultoexplainwhereandwhyour  \  ownreasoningdiffersfromthatofthedistrictcourt.The   principalissuesarelegalonesastowhichourreviewisdenovo. d  CablevisionofBoston,Inc.v.Pub.ImprovementComm'n,184F.3d `  88,96(1stCir.1999).    ` EFarguesattheoutsetthatourdecisioninEFIis h decisiveastoZefer.Butthegroundweadoptedthereinupholding d theinjunctionastotheotherdefendantswasthattheyhad  apparentlyusedconfidentialinformationtofacilitatethe l obtainingoftheEFdata.ExploricawascreatedbyformerEF h employees,someofwhomweresubjecttoconfidentialityagreements.  Zefer'spositioninthatrespectisquitedifferentthanthatof p  ExploricaorformerEFemployees.Itsignednosuchagreement,and !l" itspriorknowledgeastotheagreementisanopenquestion. "$  ` EFsuggeststhatZefermusthaveknownthatinformation t$& providedtoitbyExploricahadbeenimproperlyobtained.Thisis  &p!( possiblebutnotcertain,andtherearenoexpressdistrictcourt '#* findingsonthisissue;indeed,giventhedistrictcourt'smuch x)$, broaderbasisforitsinjunction,ithadnoreasontomakeany $+t&. detailedfindingsastotheroleoftheconfidentialityagreement.  WhatcanbegleanedfromtherecordastoZefer'sknowledge \ certainlydoesnotpermitustomakeonappealthefindingurgedby X EF.    ` WhatappearstohavehappenedisthatPhilipGormley, `  Explorica'sChiefInformationOfficerandEF'sformerVice  \  PresidentofInformationStrategy,emailedZeferadescriptionof   howEF'swebsitewasstructuredandidentifiedtheinformationthat d  Exploricawantedtohavecopied;thismayhavefacilitatedZefer's `  developmentofthescrapertool,butthereisnoindicationthat   thestructuralinformationwasunavailablefromperusalofthe h websiteorthatZeferwouldhaveknownthatitwasinformation d subjecttoaconfidentialityagreement.   ` EFalsoclaimsthatGormleyemailedZeferthe"codes" l identifyingincomputershorthandthenamesofEF'sgatewayand h destinationcities.Thesecodeswereusedtodirectthescraper  tooltothespecificpagesonEF'swebsitethatcontainedEF's p  pricinginformation.But,again,itappearsthatthecodescould !l" beextractedmoreslowlybyexaminingEF'swebpagesmanually,_ #  2      ׀so "$ itisfarfromclearthatZeferwouldhavehadtoknowthatthey t$& wereconfidential.TheonlyinformationthatZeferreceivedthat  wasdescribedasconfidential(passwordsfortourleaderaccess) \ apparentlyhadnoroleinthescraperproject. X  ` EF'salternativegroundforaffirmanceistherationale   adoptedbythedistrictcourtforthepreliminaryinjunction.That `  courtreliedonits"reasonableexpectations"testasaglosson  \  theCFAAandthenappliedittothefactsofthiscase.Although   webypassedtheissueinEFI,thedistrictcourt'srationalewould d  embraceZeferasreadilyasExploricaitself.Butthegloss `  presentsapurequestionoflawtoberevieweddenovoand,onthis   issue,wedifferwiththedistrictcourt. h  ` TheCFAAprovisionrelieduponbythedistrictcourt d states:  8 ` Whoever...knowinglyandwithintentto l defraud,accessesaprotectedcomputerwithout B authorization,orexceedsauthorizedaccess, h andbymeansofsuchconductfurthersthe > intendedfraudandobtainsanythingofvalue,  unlesstheobjectofthefraudandthething  obtainedconsistsonlyoftheuseofthe p  computerandthevalueofsuchuseisnotmore F ! than$5,000inany1yearperiod...shall !l" bepunishedasprovidedinsubsection(c)of !B# thissection."$` x` x 7Ӏ18U.S.C.1030(a)(4).Thestatutedefines"exceedsauthorized J% ' access"as"toaccessacomputerwithauthorizationandtousesuch &F") accesstoobtainoralterinformationinthecomputerthatthe (#+ accesserisnotentitledsotoobtainoralter."Id.1030(e)(6). N*%- TheCFAAfurnishesacivilremedyforindividualswhosuffer +J'/ damagesorlossasaresultofaviolationoftheabovesection.  Id.1030(g). \  ` Attheoutset,onemightthinkthatEFcouldhave X difficultyinshowinganintenttodefraud.ButZeferdidnot   brieftheissueontheoriginalappealbeforebankruptcy.In `  addition,theremaybeanargumentthatthefraudrequirement  \  shouldnotpertaintoinjunctiverelief.Accordingly,webypass   thesemattersandassumethatthefraudrequirementhasbeen d  satisfiedorisnotanobstacletotheinjunction. `   ` Theissue,then,iswhetheruseofthescraper   "exceed[ed]authorizedaccess."Alackofauthorizationcouldbe h establishedbyanexplicitstatementonthewebsiterestricting d access.(Whetherpublicpolicymightinturnlimitcertain  restrictionsisaseparateissue.)Manywebpagescontainlengthy l limitingconditions,includinglimitationsontheuseofscrapers.` #  3      ׀ h However,atthetimeofZefer'suseofthescraper,EFhadnosuch   explicitprohibitioninplace,althoughitmaywelluseonenow. p  \OY  \ \   ` Thedistrictcourtthoughtthatalackofauthorization   couldalsobeinferredfromthecircumstances,using"reasonable \ expectations"asthetest;anditsaidthatthreesuch X circumstancescomprisedsuchawarninginthiscase:thecopyright   noticeonEF'shomepagewithalinkdirectinguserstocontactthe `  companywithquestions;EF'sprovisiontoZeferofconfidential  \  informationobtainedinbreachoftheemployeeconfidentiality   agreements;andthefactthatthewebsitewasconfiguredtoallow d  ordinaryvisitorstothesitetoviewonlyonepageatatime. `   ` Weagreewiththedistrictcourtthatlackof   authorizationmaybeimplicit,ratherthanexplicit.Afterall, h passwordprotectionitselfnormallylimitsauthorizationby d implication(andtechnology),evenwithoutexpressterms.Butwe  thinkthatingeneralareasonableexpectationstestisnotthe l properglossonsubsection(a)(4)andwerejectit.However h usefulareasonableexpectationstestmightbeinothercontexts  wheretheremaybeacommonunderstandingunderpinningthenotion, p  cf.Terryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,9(1968)(FourthAmendment),itsuse !l" inthiscontextisneitherprescribedbythestatutenor "$ prudentiallysound. t$&  ` Ourbasisforthisviewisnot,assomehaveurged,that  &p!( thereisa"presumption"ofopenaccesstoInternetinformation. '#* TheCFAA,afterall,isprimarilyastatuteimposinglimitson x)$, accessandenhancingcontrolbyinformationproviders.Instead,we $+t&. thinkthatthepublicwebsiteprovidercaneasilyspellout  explicitlywhatisforbiddenand,consonantly,thatnothing \ justifiesputtingusersatthemercyofahighlyimprecise, X litigationspawningstandardlike"reasonableexpectations."If   EFwantstobanscrapers,letitsaysoonthewebpageoralink `  clearlymarkedascontainingrestrictions.  \   ` Thiscaseitselfillustratestheflawsinthe   "reasonableexpectations"standard.Whyshouldthecopyright d  symbol,whicharguablydoesnotprotectthesubstantiveinformation `  anyway,FeistPubl'ns,Inc.v.RuralTel.Serv.Co.,499U.S.340,   34445(1991),ortheprovisionofpagebypageaccessforthat h matter,betakentosuggestthatdownloadinginformationathigher d speedisforbidden.EFcouldeasilyincludeindeed,bynow  probablyhasincluded# XOXXZXO#ZXOXX XOasentenceonitshomepageorinitsterms l ofusestatingthat"noscrapersmaybeused,"givingfairwarning h andavoidingtimeconsuminglitigationaboutitsprivate,albeit  "reasonable,"intentions. p  e ` Needlesstosay,ZefercanhavebeeninnodoubtthatEF !l" woulddisliketheuseofthescrapertoconstructadatabasefor "$ ExploricatoundercutEF'sprices;butEFwouldequallyhave t$& dislikedthecompilationofsuchadatabasemanuallywithouttheuse  &p!( ofascrapertool.EFdidnotpurporttoexcludecompetitorsfrom '#* lookingatitswebsiteandanysuchlimitationwouldraiseserious x)$, publicpolicyconcerns.Cf.FoodLion,Inc.v.CapitalCities/ABC, $+t&. Inc.,194F.3d505,51618(4thCir.1999)# XOXXZXON#ZXOXX XO;Desnickv.Am.Broad.  Cos.,44F.3d1345,1351(7thCir.1995). \  ` Althoughweconcludethatthedistrictcourt'srationale X doesnotsupportanindependentpreliminaryinjunctionagainst   Zefer,thereisnoapparentreasontovacatethepresentinjunction `  "asagainstZefer."Despitebeingapartytothecase,Zeferisnot  \  namedintheorderinglanguageoftheinjunction;itismerely   precluded,likeanyoneelsewithnotice,fromactinginconcert d  with,onbehalfof,oratthedirectionofExploricatousethe `  scrapertoaccessEF'sinformation.    ` Undertheapplicablerulesandcaselaw,aninjunction h properlyissuedagainstanamedpartymeansthatanyoneelsewith d noticeisprecludedfromactingtoassisttheenjoinedpartyfrom  violatingthedecreeorfromdoingsoonbehalfofthatparty.See l Fed.R.Civ.P.65(d);G.&C.MerriamCo.v.WebsterDictionary h Co.,639F.2d29,3435(1stCir.1980).Thereisnoreasonwhy  Zefershouldbefreerthananyotherthirdpartywhowasneverin p  thislitigationtoassistEFtoviolatetheinjunctionagainstit !l" ortodosoonEF'sbehalforatitsdirection.Aswereadthe "$ injunction,thatisallthatisforbidden. t$&  ` ItmaystillbeofpracticalimportancetoZefertohave  &p!( clarifiedthelimitedbasisonwhichweupholdtheinjunction.And '#* nothingwehavesaidwouldpreventEF,ifitmattersincontinued x)$, litigation,fromseekingtoshowthatZeferdiduse_confidential $+t&. information,awarethatitwasbeingsuppliedinviolationof  agreementsmadebyformer_EF_Ԁemployees.Itisalsoofsomeusefor \ futurelitigationamongotherlitigantsinthiscircuittoindicate X that,withrareexceptions,publicwebsiteprovidersoughttosay   justwhatnonpasswordprotectedaccesstheypurporttoforbid. `   ` Lastly,_Zefer_ԀhasallegedthattheFirstAmendmentwould  \  beoffendedifthestatutewereconstruedtoforbidgenerallythe   useofscraperstocollectotherwiseavailableinformationwhere d  therewasnointenttodefraudorharmthetargetwebsite.Here, `  thepreliminaryinjunctionispremisedon_EF_'smisuseof   confidentialinformationand_Zefer_Ԁthusfarisconstrainedonlyin h helpingatentativelyidentifiedwrongdoerinexploitingthat d confidentialinformation.Cf.SanFranciscoArts&Athletics,Inc.  v.U.S.OlympicComm.,483U.S.522,541(1987).Noneof_Zefer_'s l argumentsaddressthisnarrowedconstraintor_suggest_Ԁtousthatit h isconstitutionallydoubtful.   ` Thepreliminaryinjunctionisaffirmedonthelimited p  basissetforthaboveandasconstruedbythiscourt.Eachside !l" shallbearitsowncostsonthisappeal. "$ # XOXXZXOR# `