Script completed
Wall time 0.3 seconds
Output:

ops/README.md
ops/canary.service
ops/canary.timer
    18	This subsystem lets a human do exactly that, once, remotely, and then reuses the session — **on demand, only for the walled store the user asks for.**
    19
    20	## 2. The idea in one paragraph
    21
    22	Run a **real, headful Chrome** inside a container against a **virtual display (Xvfb)** on a machine the user controls (a home box, residential IP). Normally nobody watches it. When the user taps "Check Trodo" and the store throws a challenge, the app streams that browser's screen to the user's phone via **noVNC**; the user taps through the challenge; the same browser — now holding a valid `cf_clearance` — fetches Trodo's open JSON API and returns offers. Because the browser that *solves* and the browser that *fetches* are the same process on the same host, IP / fingerprint / cookie all match by construction. See the full decision trail in the project memory and `MONETIZATION.md`.
    23
    24	### The two meanings of "headless" — do not confuse them
    25	- **Headless *deployment*** ✅ — no monitor on the host; runs as a background Docker service; the user only ever sees it through the stream. This is what we want.
    26	- **`chrome --headless`** ❌ — the exact fingerprint Cloudflare beats. We run **headful Chrome under Xvfb**, never `--headless`.
    27
    28	## 3. Architecture
    29
    30	```
    31	┌─ Docker container (home box, residential IP) ─────────────────────┐
    32	│  Xvfb            virtual display :99                               │
    33	│  Chrome          HEADFUL, --display=:99, --remote-debugging-port   │
    34	│                  9222, persistent profile volume (keeps cf_clearance│
    35	│                  warm across restarts)                             │
    36	│  x11vnc          exports :99 as a VNC server                       │
    37	│  websockify/noVNC serves the VNC as a web page on :8080            │
    38	│  Node/fastify    the existing app (src/server.ts)                  │
    39	│     ├─ auto stores      → PoliteHttp (unchanged)                   │
    40	│     └─ onDemand stores  → BrowserHub → drives the resident Chrome  │
    41	└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
    42	   Exposed ONLY on 127.0.0.1 → reach it from the phone via Tailscale/LAN.
    43	```
    44
    45	**Fetch strategy — drive the resident Chrome, don't extract the cookie.** The walled adapter does not pull `cf_clearance` out and replay it with undici: Cloudflare would re-challenge on the TLS/JA3 fingerprint mismatch (undici ≠ Chrome). Instead the adapter asks the resident Chrome to make the request from a page already on the store's origin (`page.evaluate(fetch(...))`, same-origin, cookies included). Every signal — cookie, headers, fingerprint, IP — is genuinely consistent.
    46
    47	## 4. Request flow (on-demand, streaming only on a challenge)
    48
    49	1. User searches. The 5 `auto` stores fetch over HTTP as today. `onDemand` stores render **idle** ("Check Trodo").
    50	2. User taps "Check Trodo" → `GET /api/search/trodo?q=…`.
    51	3. `BrowserHub` ensures its Trodo page is on `trodo.lv` and warm, then `fetch()`es the search API same-origin.
    52	   - **Warm** → JSON back → `parse()` → offers → card fills, comparison re-ranks. *No stream.*
    53	   - **Cold (challenge)** → `BrowserHub` throws `ChallengeRequiredError(solveUrl)` → the outcome carries `needsSolve:true, solveUrl` → the UI opens the noVNC view → user taps through → the app retries the fetch → offers. *Stream, only for those seconds.*
    54	4. Result cached 15 min by `(store, part)` like every store, so a repeat search is instant with no browser.
    55
    56	Streaming is therefore rare: never for the 5 open stores, never for a warm walled session, only when a walled session is cold — and with a warm persistent browser on a residential IP, Cloudflare often waves it through non-interactively.
    57
    58	## 5. How it grafts onto the existing code
    59
    60	The design is deliberately minimal — the core stays untouched:
    61
    62	| Concern | Change |
    63	|---|---|
    64	| Store metadata | `StoreAdapter` gains `fetchMode?: "auto" \| "onDemand"` (default `"auto"`). Exposed in `/api/stores`. |
    65	| Walled fetch | New `src/core/browserHub.ts` (`BrowserHub`, puppeteer-core `connect` to `:9222`). The adapter's `fetchHtml` calls it; **`parse()` stays a pure function over a JSON fixture**, tested exactly like `handler`/`eoltas`. |
    66	| Challenge signal | New `src/core/browserErrors.ts` → `ChallengeRequiredError(storeId, solveUrl)`. `SearchService.search` catches it and returns `needsSolve/solveUrl` in the `SearchOutcome` instead of counting a store failure. |
    67	| Frontend | `StoreInfo` gains optional `fetchMode`; `SearchResponse` gains `needsSolve?/solveUrl?`. `auto` stores auto-fire (as now); `onDemand` render idle with a fetch button that opens the solve view on `needsSolve`. *(UX slice — see §7.)* |
    68	| Runtime optionality | If the browser service isn't running, `BrowserHub.connect()` fails, the walled fetch errors, and the card shows "unavailable". **The 5-store tool is unaffected.** |
    69
    70	The five `auto` adapters, `PoliteHttp`, cache, measurement, redirect, and stats are all unchanged.
    71
    72	## 6. Deployment (home box, residential IP)
    73
    74	- `docker/Dockerfile` — Node 24 LTS (matches the dev box; npm 11 is required by `web/package-lock.json`'s shape) + headful `google-chrome-stable` + Xvfb + x11vnc + noVNC. `.dockerignore` keeps `node_modules`/`data`/`public` out of the context.
    75	- `docker/entrypoint.sh` — boots Xvfb → Chrome (headful, `--remote-debugging-port=9222`, persistent `--user-data-dir`) → x11vnc → websockify/noVNC → the Node app (`tsx` directly — the Angular build is baked into the image). On (re)start it clears stale locks — X11 `/tmp/.X99-lock` and Chrome `Singleton*` in the profile volume, either of which otherwise crash-loops a restarted container — and creates `/app/data` (better-sqlite3 won't mkdir).
    76	- `docker/docker-compose.yml` — one service, `chrome-profile` + `comparator-data` volumes (warm browser session; SQLite cache/stats), `shm_size: 1gb`. Ports on **all host interfaces**: app `:3000`, noVNC `:8090` host-side (host `8080` was already taken) — reachable over home LAN (`10.82.82.1`) and the tailnet (`100.82.172.121`; the host already runs tailscaled).
    77	- **Security:** the exposure boundary is the home router's NAT + the tailnet — **never port-forward 3000/8090 to the public internet**: noVNC is a live, *passwordless* browser session (`x11vnc -nopw`). Anyone on the LAN/tailnet can drive it; that's the accepted trade-off for a single-user home network.
    78	- **`NOVNC_URL`** is the host-side address the solve view opens; it's set to the LAN IP, so from the tailnet open `:8090` on the tailscale IP manually until slice 4 rewrites the URL's host to `window.location.hostname` in the frontend.
    79	- **IP:** run it at home. Datacenter IPs get challenged hard; a residential IP + warm browser rarely challenges.
    80
    81	### Container engine: Docker or Podman (Podman is the Fedora-native fit)
    82
    83	The `Dockerfile` and compose file are engine-agnostic — Podman reads both as-is (`podman compose -f docker/docker-compose.yml up --build`). On the intended Fedora home box, **rootless Podman** is the default; the image is already rootless-friendly:
    84	- Chrome runs with `--no-sandbox` (required rootless) — in `entrypoint.sh`.
    85	- `shm_size: 1gb` **and** `--disable-dev-shm-usage` guard against Chrome's `/dev/shm` crashes.
    86	- A **named volume** (`chrome-profile`) is used, not a bind mount, so no SELinux `:Z` relabel is needed. (If you switch to a bind mount on an SELinux-enforcing box, add `:Z`.)
    87
    88	**Boot persistence:** `restart: unless-stopped` covers uptime, but rootless containers don't auto-start on reboot on their own. Use a **Quadlet** unit (`~/.config/containers/systemd/comparator.container`) or `podman generate systemd`, plus `loginctl enable-linger $USER` so it starts without a login session.
    89
    90	## 7. Build order
    91
    92	1. **Infra + seam** ✅ — `fetchMode` on `StoreAdapter` + `/api/stores`; `browserErrors.ts`; `browserHub.ts`; `needsSolve` in `SearchOutcome`; Docker files; a `trodo` adapter wired to `BrowserHub`. Backend typechecks; nothing live changed.
    93	2. **Stand up the container** ✅ (2026-07-12) — image builds on **rootless Podman** (the box's `podman` is a remote client to the host socket; see project memory), container runs on host network. Verified: app `:3000`, noVNC `:8090`, Chrome CDP `:9222` (Chrome 150, **headful**), all reachable over LAN + tailnet. Bugs fixed en route: `.dockerignore`; Node 24 base (npm-11 lockfile); entrypoint clears stale X11 + Chrome `Singleton*` locks and creates `/app/data`; `tsx` instead of re-building Angular on boot.
    94	3. **Capture Trodo fixture + `parse()`** ✅ (2026-07-12) — the real search endpoint is **`GET /rest/V1/catalogsearch/result/0?q=<CANON>&searchby=name&…&currency=EUR&country=LV`** (the `/oem/<n>` path hard-403s; a top-level nav to the API path is WAF-*blocked*, not challengeable — only the SPA's XHR flow is allowed). It carries a **managed** Cloudflare challenge that surfaces an inline "Verify you are human" widget on the results page; a human solve issues `cf_clearance`, then the same-origin fetch returns the JSON envelope `[{ products:[…] }]`. Fixture `fixtures/trodo/0986452041.json`; `parse()` written + fixture-tested (4 tests); `enabled:true`. Live `/api/search/trodo` returns real offers through the resident browser.
    95	4. **Frontend on-demand UX** ✅ (2026-07-12) — walled stores start **idle** with a "Pārbaudīt <store>" (Check) button in the per-store chip row (the 5 auto stores fetch as before); tapping it fires `GET /api/search/<store>`. Warm → offers merge into the existing client-side grouping/ranking (verified: Trodo's 24 offers merged, chip → "24 piedāvājumi"). Cold → the chip flips to **"Atrisināt pārbaudi"**; tapping opens a **noVNC overlay** (iframe of the resident browser) with "Gatavs — turpināt" / "Aizvērt"; the user solves, and "Gatavs" retries the fetch. Implemented in `search.service.ts` (`fetchStore`, idle/needs_solve statuses), `app.ts` (solve overlay state + host rewrite), `app.html` (chip buttons + overlay), `strings.ts`. Both refinements landed:
    96	   - **Cold-solve navigation** ✅ — `BrowserHub.fetchJson` gained an `opts.solvePage`; on a challenged API response it navigates the resident page to that URL (Trodo passes `…/catalogsearch/result?q=<CANON>&searchby=name`) so the "Verify you are human" widget is on screen in the stream before `ChallengeRequiredError` is thrown.
    97	   - **noVNC host rewrite** ✅ — the frontend rewrites `solveUrl`'s host to `window.location.hostname` (keeps port/path), so the same link works whether the app was opened via the LAN IP or the tailnet IP. *(Caveat: the iframe is `http://…:8090`; if the app is ever served over HTTPS via a reverse proxy, that becomes mixed content — proxy noVNC under the same origin then.)*
    98
    99	Verified end-to-end in the running container by driving the real Angular UI: idle button present → warm check merges offers → forced-cold (cleared `cf_clearance`) check flips to "Atrisināt pārbaudi" → overlay opens with the host-rewritten noVNC iframe.
   100
   101	5. **More walled stores** ✅ (2026-07-12) — probing the remaining Tier-2 candidates through the resident browser produced a key finding: **the warm headful browser on the residential IP passes Cloudflare's managed challenge non-interactively** (no evasion — it is Cloudflare's own script running to completion in a real browser; the human/noVNC path stays as the cold-session fallback). Live results: **rd24** 200 + 108 results, **euautodalas** 200 + 148 results, **autodoc** first nav 403-challenged → self-cleared in seconds → `cf_clearance` issued → 200 on retry. All three are server-rendered HTML (not JSON like Trodo), so `BrowserHub` gained **`fetchPageHtml(storeId, url)`**: navigate the store's resident page to the results URL; on a challenge, wait `challengeClearMs` (default 12 s, env `BROWSER_CHALLENGE_CLEAR_MS`) for it to clear itself, re-navigate once, and only then throw `ChallengeRequiredError` — at which point the page is already sitting on the widget, so the noVNC stream shows exactly what to solve (no separate `solvePage` needed). Adapters: `rd24` re-enabled (its 2026-07-10 parse/fixture still match live markup), new `euautodalas` + `autodoc` (both read the clean `data-price` attribute, dodging euautodalas' decorative `0,00 €` elements). Fixtures captured through the resident browser: `fixtures/euautodalas/W71252.html`, `fixtures/autodoc/0986452041.html`. All four walled stores live-verified end-to-end through `/api/search/<store>`. Store count: **9** (5 auto + 4 onDemand). Not unlocked (different walls, unchanged): rb24 (prices login-gated), topautodalas (no part-number search), sparesauto (no priced markup), dts (Turnstile token per request).
   102
   103	Only after the 5-store core is validated for the click-through gate does the walled phase earn priority — this subsystem is additive and strictly opt-in.
     1	/**
     2	 * BrowserHub — the seam between onDemand ("walled") adapters and the resident
     3	 * headful Chrome running in the Docker container (see WALLED-STORES.md).
     4	 *
     5	 * It connects to that Chrome over CDP (puppeteer-core `connect`, no browser is
     6	 * launched here) and fetches a store's API *through* a page already on the store's
     7	 * origin — so the request carries the human-earned `cf_clearance` cookie, the real
     8	 * browser fingerprint, and the host's IP, all consistent. We deliberately do NOT
     9	 * extract the cookie and replay it with undici: Cloudflare would re-challenge on the
    10	 * TLS/JA3 mismatch.
    11	 *
    12	 * When the page is on a Cloudflare challenge (cold session), fetching throws
    13	 * ChallengeRequiredError(solveUrl); SearchService turns that into a `needsSolve`
    14	 * outcome and the UI opens the noVNC stream for the user to solve it once.
    15	 *
    16	 * NOTE: this module is only exercised when an onDemand adapter is enabled AND the
    17	 * browser service is reachable. With no such adapter enabled (default), it is never
    18	 * touched and the 5-store core runs without Chrome.
    19	 */
    20	import puppeteer, { type Browser, type Page } from "puppeteer-core";
    21	import { ChallengeRequiredError } from "./browserErrors.js";
    22	import type { BrowserFetcher } from "./types.js";
    23
    24	export interface BrowserHubOptions {
    25	  /** CDP endpoint of the resident Chrome, e.g. http://127.0.0.1:9222 */
    26	  browserURL: string;
    27	  /** noVNC page the UI opens when a challenge must be solved. */
    28	  solveUrl: string;
    29	  /** Budget for a page navigation (homepage warm-up / challenge check), ms. */
    30	  navTimeoutMs: number;
    31	  /**
    32	   * How long to give Cloudflare's own (non-interactive) challenge script to clear
    33	   * itself after a navigation lands on an interstitial, before we conclude a human
    34	   * is needed. A warm headful browser on a residential IP usually passes managed
    35	   * challenges without any interaction — observed live on autodoc.lv 2026-07-12.
    36	   */
    37	  challengeClearMs: number;
    38	  /**
    39	   * TEST SWITCH (empty in normal operation): store ids treated as if they hit a
    40	   * Cloudflare challenge every time — the fetch lands the tab on the store's
    41	   * human-facing page and throws ChallengeRequiredError. Lets us exercise the noVNC
    42	   * solve overlay end-to-end (kiosk view, bring-to-front, resize-to-fit on a phone)
    43	   * WITHOUT a real challenge, which a warm residential browser clears
    44	   * non-interactively and so can't be provoked on demand.
    45	   */
    46	  forceSolve: ReadonlySet<string>;
    47	}
    48
    49	interface BrowserFetch {
    50	  status: number;
    51	  body: string;
    52	}
    53
    54	export class BrowserHub implements BrowserFetcher {
    55	  private browser: Browser | null = null;
    56	  /**
    57	   * Tabs deliberately kept open because a human still has to solve a challenge on them,
    58	   * keyed by store. Every OTHER tab is closed the moment its fetch finishes, so an idle
    59	   * hub holds no tabs (just Chrome's own about:blank) instead of one-per-store forever.
    60	   * The session itself (cf_clearance and friends) lives in the on-disk profile, not the
    61	   * tab, so closing tabs costs nothing but a re-navigation on the next fetch.
    62	   */
    63	  private solvePages = new Map<string, Page>();
    64	  /** Tail of each store's fetch queue — same-store fetches are serialized (see withStoreLock). */
    65	  private locks = new Map<string, Promise<void>>();
    66
    67	  constructor(private readonly opts: BrowserHubOptions) {}
    68
    69	  private forcedSolve(storeId: string): boolean {
    70	    return this.opts.forceSolve.has(storeId);
    71	  }
    72
    73	  /**
    74	   * Serialize fetches per store: two concurrent fetches for the same store would
    75	   * each open a tab, and if both ended in "keep for solve" the second would
    76	   * overwrite the solvePages entry and leak the first tab.
    77	   */
    78	  private async withStoreLock<T>(storeId: string, fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
    79	    const prev = this.locks.get(storeId) ?? Promise.resolve();
    80	    let release!: () => void;
    81	    this.locks.set(
    82	      storeId,
    83	      new Promise((r) => (release = r)),
    84	    );
    85	    await prev;
    86	    try {
    87	      return await fn();
    88	    } finally {
    89	      release();
    90	    }
    91	  }
    92
    93	  private async connect(): Promise<Browser> {
    94	    if (this.browser?.connected) return this.browser;
    95	    // Throws if the container/Chrome isn't running — the caller surfaces "unavailable".
    96	    this.browser = await puppeteer.connect({ browserURL: this.opts.browserURL });
    97	    return this.browser;
    98	  }
    99
   100	  /**
   101	   * A tab for this fetch: reuse the one we left open for this store's pending solve (the
   102	   * human may have just cleared it, so its warm state is exactly what we want to retry on),
   103	   * otherwise open a fresh one.
   104	   */
   105	  private async acquire(storeId: string): Promise<Page> {
   106	    const pending = this.solvePages.get(storeId);
   107	    this.solvePages.delete(storeId);
   108	    if (pending && !pending.isClosed()) return pending;
   109	    const browser = await this.connect();
   110	    return browser.newPage();
   111	  }
   112
   113	  /**
   114	   * Done with the tab: close it so idle memory stays flat — UNLESS a human still needs to
   115	   * solve a challenge on it, in which case keep it and bring it to the FRONT so the noVNC
   116	   * stream shows THIS store's page, not whichever tab happened to be active last.
   117	   */
   118	  private async release(storeId: string, page: Page, keepForSolve: boolean): Promise<void> {
   119	    if (page.isClosed()) return;
   120	    if (keepForSolve) {
   260	        throw new ChallengeRequiredError(storeId, this.opts.solveUrl);
   261	      }
   262	      if (result.status < 200 || result.status >= 300) {
   263	        throw new Error(`${storeId}: browser fetch HTTP ${result.status} for ${url}`);
   264	      }
   265	      return result.body;
   266	    } finally {
   267	      await this.release(storeId, page, keepForSolve);
   268	    }
   269	  }
   270
   271	  /**
   272	   * Fetch a server-rendered store page by NAVIGATING the store's resident page to it
   273	   * (rd24 / euautodalas / autodoc — HTML stores, unlike trodo's JSON API). Returns the
   274	   * serialized DOM for the adapter's pure parse().
   275	   *
   276	   * Challenge handling: a navigation that lands on a Cloudflare interstitial is given
   277	   * `challengeClearMs` to clear itself — managed challenges usually pass non-interactively
   278	   * in this warm headful browser (no evasion: it's Cloudflare's own script running to
   279	   * completion in a real browser). Only if it doesn't clear do we throw
   280	   * ChallengeRequiredError — and the page is already sitting on the challenge widget,
   281	   * so the noVNC stream shows exactly what the user must solve. No solvePage needed.
   282	   */
   283	  async fetchPageHtml(
   284	    storeId: string,
   285	    url: string,
   286	    opts: { waitForSelector?: string } = {},
   287	  ): Promise<string> {
   288	    return this.withStoreLock(storeId, () => this.fetchPageHtmlLocked(storeId, url, opts));
   289	  }
   290
   291	  private async fetchPageHtmlLocked(
   292	    storeId: string,
   293	    url: string,
   294	    opts: { waitForSelector?: string },
   295	  ): Promise<string> {
   296	    const page = await this.acquire(storeId);
   297	    let keepForSolve = false;
   298	    try {
   299	      if (this.forcedSolve(storeId)) {
   300	        await page
   301	          .goto(url, { waitUntil: "domcontentloaded", timeout: this.opts.navTimeoutMs })
   302	          .catch(() => undefined);
   303	        keepForSolve = true;
   304	        throw new ChallengeRequiredError(storeId, this.opts.solveUrl);
   305	      }
   306	      let resp = await page.goto(url, {
   307	        waitUntil: "domcontentloaded",
   308	        timeout: this.opts.navTimeoutMs,
   309	      });
   310	      if (await isChallengePage(page, resp?.status() ?? null)) {
   311	        const cleared = await this.waitForChallengeClear(page);
   312	        if (!cleared) {
   313	          keepForSolve = true;
   314	          throw new ChallengeRequiredError(storeId, this.opts.solveUrl);
   315	        }
   316	        // Re-navigate once with the fresh cf_clearance so the DOM we serialize is the
   317	        // real results page, not whatever state the challenge reload left behind.
   318	        resp = await page.goto(url, {
   319	          waitUntil: "domcontentloaded",
   320	          timeout: this.opts.navTimeoutMs,
   321	        });
   322	        if (await isChallengePage(page, resp?.status() ?? null)) {
   323	          keepForSolve = true;
   324	          throw new ChallengeRequiredError(storeId, this.opts.solveUrl);
   325	        }
   326	      }
   327	      if (opts.waitForSelector) {
   328	        await page.waitForSelector(opts.waitForSelector, { timeout: 5000 }).catch(() => null);
   329	      }
   330	      return await page.content();
   331	    } finally {
   332	      await this.release(storeId, page, keepForSolve);
   333	    }
   334	  }
   335
     1	{
     2	  "name": "car-parts-comparator-poc",
     3	  "version": "0.1.3",
     4	  "private": true,
     5	  "type": "module",
     6	  "scripts": {
     7	    "dev": "npm run build:web && tsx watch src/server.ts",
     8	    "start": "npm run build:web && tsx src/server.ts",
     9	    "build:web": "npm --prefix web run build",
    10	    "build:desktop": "npm run build:web && tsc -p tsconfig.desktop.json",
    11	    "build:desktop:package": "npm run build:web && node desktop/build-package.mjs",
    12	    "smoke:desktop:package": "npm run build:desktop:package && electron .phase-e/app/runtime/desktop/main.js --smoke",
    13	    "package:win:portable": "npm run build:desktop:package && electron-builder --projectDir .phase-e/app --config ../../desktop/electron-builder.yml --win portable --x64",
    14	    "package:desktop:win": "npm run build:desktop:package && electron-builder --projectDir .phase-e/app --config ../../desktop/electron-builder.release.mjs --win nsis portable --x64",
    15	    "package:desktop:linux": "npm run build:desktop:package && electron-builder --projectDir .phase-e/app --config ../../desktop/electron-builder.release.mjs --linux AppImage --x64",
    16	    "package:desktop:mac": "npm run build:desktop:package && electron-builder --projectDir .phase-e/app --config ../../desktop/electron-builder.release.mjs --mac dmg zip --x64",
    17	    "start:desktop": "npm run build:desktop && electron .phase-d/desktop/main.js",
    18	    "smoke:desktop": "npm run build:desktop && electron .phase-d/desktop/main.js --smoke",
    19	    "dev:web": "npm --prefix web start",
    20	    "test": "vitest run",
    21	    "test:web": "npm --prefix web test",
    22	    "typecheck": "tsc --noEmit",
    23	    "lint": "eslint . && npm --prefix web run lint",
    24	    "spike:electron-browser": "electron spikes/electron-browser/main.mjs",
    25	    "check:engine-browser": "node spikes/engine-browser/run.mjs",
    26	    "build:android:spike": "node spikes/android-browser/build.mjs && CAPACITOR_PHASE_F=1 cap sync android",
    27	    "package:android:spike": "npm run build:android:spike && GRADLE_USER_HOME=.phase-f/gradle-home ./android/gradlew -p android assembleDebug",
    28	    "build:android": "npm --prefix web run build -- --configuration android && cap sync android",
    29	    "package:android:debug": "npm run build:android && GRADLE_USER_HOME=.phase-g/gradle-home ./android/gradlew -p android clean assembleDebug",
    30	    "package:android:release": "npm run build:android && GRADLE_USER_HOME=.phase-g/gradle-home ./android/gradlew -p android clean assembleRelease && node android/collect-release.mjs",
    31	    "record": "tsx scripts/record.ts",
    32	    "canary": "tsx scripts/canary.ts"
    33	  },
    34	  "dependencies": {
    35	    "@capacitor/browser": "^8.0.4",
    36	    "@capacitor/core": "^8.4.2",
    37	    "@capacitor/preferences": "^8.0.1",
    38	    "@fastify/static": "^8.0.0",
    39	    "better-sqlite3": "^12.0.0",
    40	    "cheerio": "^1.0.0",
    41	    "electron-updater": "^6.8.9",
    42	    "fastify": "^5.0.0",
    43	    "puppeteer-core": "^25.3.0",
    44	    "undici": "^8.7.0",
    45	    "zod": "^3.24.0"
    46	  },
    47	  "devDependencies": {
    48	    "@capacitor/android": "^8.4.2",
    49	    "@capacitor/cli": "^8.4.2",
    50	    "@eslint/js": "^10.0.1",
    51	    "@types/better-sqlite3": "^7.6.0",
    52	    "@types/node": "^24.0.0",
    53	    "electron": "^43.1.1",
    54	    "electron-builder": "^26.15.3",
    55	    "esbuild": "^0.28.1",
    56	    "eslint": "^10.7.0",
    57	    "tsx": "^4.19.0",
    58	    "typescript": "^5.7.0",
    59	    "typescript-eslint": "^8.63.0",
    60	    "vitest": "^3.0.0"
    61	  }
    62	}


exec

Input: const r = await tools.exec_command({cmd:"rg --files docker . | rg '(^|/)(Dockerfile|docker-compose\\.yml|entrypoint\\.sh)$|novnc|x11vnc|browserHub'","workdir":"/home/Messier82/projects/car-parts-comparator-poc","yield_time_ms":10000,"max_output_tokens":4000}); text(r.output);


Script completed
Wall time 0.3 seconds
Output:

docker/entrypoint.sh
docker/docker-compose.yml
docker/Dockerfile
./docker/entrypoint.sh
./docker/docker-compose.yml
./docker/Dockerfile
./src/core/browserHub.ts


It is not too much effort if we self-host only the browser execution layer. It becomes too much if we try to recreate Browserless/Bright Data’s proxy network, fingerprint research, and CAPTCHA-solving infrastructure.

We already have roughly half of the self-hosted solution:

- Headful Chrome under Xvfb.
- Persistent profiles and `cf_clearance`.
- Puppeteer/CDP connection.
- Same-origin browser fetches.
- Per-store serialization.
- Challenge detection.
- noVNC human solving.
- A 15-minute cache.

That architecture is documented in [WALLED-STORES.md](/home/Messier82/projects/car-parts-comparator-poc/WALLED-STORES.md:20), and the browser abstraction already exists in [browserHub.ts](/home/Messier82/projects/car-parts-comparator-poc/src/core/browserHub.ts:54).

### What we can reasonably own

A production version could be:

```text
Hosted application
    │
    ├─ ordinary stores → HTTP adapters
    │
    └─ protected stores → browser-job queue
                              │
                    ┌─────────┴─────────┐
                    │ Chrome workers    │
                    │ persistent volume │
                    │ sticky proxy      │
                    └───────────────────┘
```

We would operate Chrome containers ourselves but buy:

- Static ISP or sticky residential proxy egress.
- Optionally a CAPTCHA-solving API.
- A normal VPS/container host.

This avoids paying a browser-as-a-service markup while not pretending we can build a residential proxy network ourselves.

### What must be added

The current implementation is single-user infrastructure. For public hosting it needs:

- A pool of browser workers rather than one browser.
- A job queue with concurrency and timeout limits.
- Sticky pairing of browser profile and proxy IP.
- Crash detection and automatic worker replacement.
- Per-store rate limits across the whole fleet.
- Authenticated, one-time human solve links—or operator-only solving.
- Metrics for queue time, browser failures, CAPTCHA rate and bandwidth.
- Resource interception where it does not increase bot detection.
- Regular Chrome image rebuilds and security updates.

The largest immediate security issue is that the existing noVNC session is passwordless and explicitly designed never to be exposed publicly ([WALLED-STORES.md](/home/Messier82/projects/car-parts-comparator-poc/WALLED-STORES.md:72)). That part cannot simply be deployed as-is.

### What we should not build

I would not attempt to maintain our own:

- Chromium fingerprint patches.
- TLS fingerprint impersonation.
- Residential IP acquisition/rotation network.
- CAPTCHA image/Turnstile solver.
- Constant anti-bot research.

That is the endless maintenance portion. A change by Cloudflare could consume days with no product improvement.

### Estimated effort

| Scope | Initial effort | Ongoing burden |
|---|---:|---:|
| Harden the existing single browser for a small hosted beta | 3–5 days | Low while traffic remains small |
| Add a proper 3–5 worker pool, queue and sticky profiles | 1–2 weeks | Moderate |
| Add automated third-party CAPTCHA solving | 2–4 days plus target-specific debugging | Moderate and unpredictable |
| Build our own stealth/fingerprint stack | Several weeks initially | Permanently high |
| Recreate a Browserless/Bright Data equivalent | Not commercially sensible | Continuous specialist team |

### The practical strategy

I would use a hybrid escalation model:

1. Run all open stores through existing HTTP adapters.
2. Run protected stores through our self-hosted Chrome pool.
3. Use a small number of static Latvian ISP/residential identities, each permanently paired with a persistent profile.
4. Let managed challenges clear naturally.
5. If a challenge remains, use operator/human solving during the beta.
6. Only route a persistently failing store through Bright Data or Browserless.

That last point is useful: the choice is not “entirely self-hosted” versus “entirely SaaS.” `BrowserFetcher` already gives us the seam to choose a backend per store.

My recommendation is to self-host the first hosted beta. We already possess enough working machinery that paying Browserless for every protected request would be premature. Once real usage tells us the CAPTCHA rate, concurrency and bandwidth, we can decide whether operating the worker pool is cheaper than outsourcing it. The line I would hold is: own Chrome and orchestration; rent residential identity and hard-target unblocking when necessary.


# Collaboration Mode: Default

You are now in Default mode. Any previous instructions for other modes (e.g. Plan mode) are no longer active.

Your active mode changes only when new developer instructions with a different `<collaboration_mode>...</collaboration_mode>` change it; user requests or tool descriptions do not change mode by themselves. Known mode names are Default and Plan.

## request_user_input availability

Use the `request_user_input` tool only when it is listed in the available tools for this turn.

In Default mode, strongly prefer making reasonable assumptions and executing the user's request rather than stopping to ask questions. If you absolutely must ask a question because the answer cannot be discovered from local context and a reasonable assumption would be risky, ask the user directly with a concise plain-text question. Never write a multiple choice question as a textual assistant message.


Summary: auto


Let's go back to the legal part. Detail the points.


I’ll lay out the hosted model’s legal exposure by cause of action, not collapse it into “scraping may be risky.” I’ll distinguish what changes when we add stealth/CAPTCHA bypass, what monetization changes, and which risks are contractual, database/IP, computer-access, consumer/privacy, or purely operational. This is general analysis, not a Latvian lawyer’s opinion.


Input: const r = await tools.web__run({search_query:[{q:"site:curia.europa.eu C-202/12 Innoweb Wegener dedicated meta search engine database right judgment"},{q:"site:curia.europa.eu C-203/02 British Horseracing Board William Hill investment obtaining data judgment"},{q:"site:curia.europa.eu C-762/19 CV-Online Latvia Melons meta search database judgment"},{q:"site:curia.europa.eu C-30/14 Ryanair PR Aviation terms conditions database directive judgment"}],"response_length":"long"}); text(r);


Question: site:curia.europa.eu C-202/12 Innoweb Wegener dedicated meta search engine database right judgment ...

site:curia.europa.eu C-203/02 British Horseracing Board William Hill investment obtaining data judgment

site:curia.europa.eu C-762/19 CV-Online Latvia Melons meta search database judgment

site:curia.europa.eu C-30/14 Ryanair PR Aviation terms conditions database directive judgment


Script completed
Wall time 3.1 seconds
Output:

InfoCuria - Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-762%2F19)
citeturn12search0 [wordlim: 200] Published: 5.1 years ago; Crawled: 2 days ago; Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija – Latvia) – ‘CV-Online Latvia’ SIA v ‘Melons’ SIA (Case C-762/19) 1 (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Legal protection of databases – Directive 96/9/EC – Article 7 – Sui generis right of makers of databases – Prohibition on any third party to ‘extract’ or ‘re-utilise’, without the maker’s permission, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of the database – Database freely accessible on the internet – Meta search engine specialising in job advertisement searches – Extraction and/or re-utilisation of the contents of a database – Risk to the substantial investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the content of a database) Language of the case: Latvian Referring court Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: ‘CV-Online Latvia’ SIA Defendant: ‘Melons’ SIA Operative part of

List of results : 1 results

# List of results

1

Case number

  * Sort by relevance
  * Date of introduction
  * Date of introduction
  * Date of closure
  * Date of closure
  * Case number
  * Case number

Export results

  * Export to {0} format
  * Export to {0} format

  *   * ## C-762/19 - CV-Online Latvia

Display details in the side pane

17/10/2019 - 03/06/2021

Closed

Court of Justice

Ranking : 100%

  * ### Judgment (OJ), 02/07/2021

EUR-Lex Published in the European Court Reports

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija – Latvia) – ‘CV-Online Latvia’ SIA v ‘Melons’ SIA (Case C-762/19) 1 (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Legal protection of databases – Directive 96/9/EC – Article 7 – Sui generis right of makers of databases – Prohibition on any third party to ‘extract’ or ‘re-utilise’, without the maker’s permission, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of the database – Database freely accessible on the internet – Meta search engine specialising in job advertisement searches – Extraction and/or re-utilisation of the contents of a database – Risk to the substantial investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the content of a database) Language of the case: Latvian Referring court Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: ‘CV-Online Latvia’ SIA Defendant: ‘Melons’ SIA Operative part of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
InfoCuria - Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-30%2F14)
citeturn12search1 [wordlim: 200] Published: 11.5 years ago; Crawled: today; Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV (Case C-30/14) 1 (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Database not protected by copyright or the sui generis right — Contractual limitation on the rights of users of the database) Language of the case: Dutch Referring court Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Ryanair Ltd Defendant: PR Aviation BV Operative part of the judgment Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a database which is not protected either by copyright or by the sui generis right under that directive, so that Articles 6(1), 8 and 15 of that directive do not preclude the author of such a database from laying down contractual limitations

InfoCuria - Cour de justice de l’Union européenne

  *   * ## C-30/14 - Ryanair

Display details in the side pane

22/01/2014 - 15/01/2015

Closed

Court of Justice

Ranking : 100%

  * ### Judgment (OJ), 13/02/2015

EUR-Lex Published in the European Court Reports

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV (Case C-30/14) 1 (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Database not protected by copyright or the sui generis right — Contractual limitation on the rights of users of the database) Language of the case: Dutch Referring court Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Ryanair Ltd Defendant: PR Aviation BV Operative part of the judgment Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a database which is not protected either by copyright or by the sui generis right under that directive, so that Articles 6(1), 8 and 15 of that directive do not preclude the author of such a database from laying down contractual limitations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case C-203/02 (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?docid=64559&doclang=EN)
citeturn12search12 [wordlim: 200] Published: 1.1 years ago; Case C-203/02The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others ... William Hill Organization Ltd ... Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 9 November 2004 ... of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database
Case C-203/02
The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others
v
William Hill Organization Ltd
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (Civil Division))
(Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Sui generis right —
Obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database — (In)
substantial part of the contents of a database — Extraction and re-utilisation —
Normal exploitation — Unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the
maker — Horseracing database — Lists of races — Betting)
Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hacld delivered on 8 June 2004
I - 10419
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 9 November 2004
I - 10461
Summary of the Judgment
1. Approximation of laws — Legal protection of databases — Directive 96/9 — Definition
of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database
I - 10415--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traducción (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?cid=15956707&dir=&docid=225762&doclang=ES&mode=lst&occ=first&pageIndex=0&part=1&text=)
citeturn12search13 [wordlim: 200] Published: 1.1 years ago; PETICIÓN DE DECISIÓN PREJUDICIAL DE 14.10.2019 — ASUNTO C-762/19 ... [1] La demandante y apelada, SIA «CV-Online Latvia» (en lo sucesivo, ... www.cv.lv, metaetiquetas (microdatos Schema.org) que se muestran en los
PETICIÓN DE DECISIÓN PREJUDICIAL DE 14.10.2019 — ASUNTO C-762/19

Hechos
[1] La demandante y apelada, SIA «CV-Online Latvia» (en lo sucesivo,
«demandante»), es la propietaria y administradora del sitio de Internet www.cv.lv,
que permite efectuar búsquedas de ofertas y demandas de empleo. En el litigio
principal, es pacífico entre las partes que el sitio de Internet de la demandante,
junto con las ofertas y demandas de empleo incluidas en él, debe considerarse una
base de datos.
La demandada y apelante, SIA «Melons» (en lo sucesivo, «demandada»), es la
propietaria y administradora del sitio de Internet www.kurdarbs.lv, un motor de
búsqueda.
El sitio de Internet administrado por la demandada encuentra sitios web en los que
se publica información accesible al público sobre anuncios de trabajo y, a través
de un hipervínculo, se redirige al usuario, que busca anuncios de trabajo, al sitio
web en el que se publicó inicialmente la información encontrada. El usuario final,
al clicar en los hipervínculos, consulta el sitio de Internet de la demandante,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/document/document_print.jsf%3Bjsessionid%3D8102A768D43909E39F733A41C94F7662?cid=5529005&dir=&docid=236430&doclang=HU&mode=DOC&occ=first&pageIndex=0&part=1&text=)
citeturn12search2 [wordlim: 200] Published: 5.5 years ago; Crawled: last month; Az ismertetés napja: 2021. január 14.( ... C‑762/19. sz. ügy ... A „CV.lv” oldal egyébiránt „mikroadat” (microdata) típusú metacímkékkel (meta tags) van ellátva, négy internetes keresőmotor konzorciuma, a Schema.org által létrehozott szabványnak megfelelően.( ... 12. ... Egyébiránt arra hivatkozik, hogy különbséget kell tenni a „CV.lv” weboldal és az oldal által tartalmazott adatbázis között.

InfoCuria - Cour de justice de l’Union européenne

MACIEJ SZPUNAR

FŐTANÁCSNOK INDÍTVÁNYA

Az ismertetés napja: 2021. január 14.(1)

C‑762/19. sz. ügy

SIA „CV‑Online Latvia”

kontra

SIA „Melons”

(a Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija [a rigai regionális bíróság polgári kollégiuma, Lettország] által benyújtott előzetes döntéshozatal iránti kérelem)

„Előzetes döntéshozatal – Adatbázisok jogi védelme – 96/9/EK irányelv – 7. cikk – Az adatbázis‑előállítók sui generis joga –Az adatbázis egész tartalma vagy jelentős része harmadik személy általi, az előállító engedélye nélküli »kimásolásának« vagy »újrahasznosításának« tilalma – Internetes oldalon elérhető adatbázis – Ezen oldalra mutató hiperhivatkozásnak és az adatbázisban szereplő információkat tartalmazó metacímkéknek valamely keresőmotor üzemeltetője általi megjelenítése”

 Bevezetés

1.        A szellemi tulajdonjogok családjában az adatbázisok védelmére vonatkozó sui generis jog a legfiatalabbak közé tartozik. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevod
C-762/19 - 1
Zadeva C-762/19
Predlog za (https://infocuriaws.curia.europa.eu/blob/download-file/225762/SL/pdf)
citeturn12search14 [wordlim: 200] Published: 4 months ago; C-762/19 - 1 ... družba SIA „CV-Online Latvia“ vložila proti družbi SIA „Melons“ in s katero
Prevod
C-762/19 - 1
Zadeva C-762/19
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe
Datum vložitve:
17. oktober 2019
Predložitveno sodišče:
Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesu kolēģija (regionalno sodišče v
Rigi, civilni oddelek) (Latvija)
Datum predložitvene odločbe:
14. oktober 2019
Tožeča stranka na prvi stopnji in nasprotna stranka v postopku s pritožbo:
SIA „CV-Online Latvia“
Tožena stranka na prvi stopnji in pritožnica:
SIA „Melons“

[…] (ni prevedeno)
ECLI:LV:RAT:2019:1014.C30638718.8.L
SKLEP
o ustavitvi postopka in predložitvi predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe
Sodišču Evropske unije
Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesu kolēģija (regionalno sodišče v Rigi, civilni
oddelek) […] (ni prevedeno) [sestava senata in zastopniki strank]
je na obravnavi 14. oktobra 2019 obravnavalo civilni spor v zvezi s tožbo, ki jo je
družba SIA „CV-Online Latvia“ vložila proti družbi SIA „Melons“ in s katero
predlaga, naj se toženi stranki prepove, da na spletno mesto, ki ga upravlja, da
povezave, ki omogočajo, da se s klikom nanje dostopa do baze podatkov tožeče
stranke.
Ozadje spora
Dejansko stanje
SL--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veci - InfoCuria - Súdny dvor Európskej únie (https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?language=SK&num=C-30%2F14)
citeturn12search3 [wordlim: 200] Published: 11.5 years ago; Crawled: 2 weeks ago; Rozsudok Súdneho dvora (druhá komora) z 15. januára 2015 (návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Hoge Raad der Nederlanden – Holandsko) – Ryanair Ltd/PR Aviation BV (vec C-30/14)1 (Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania – Smernica 96/9/ES – Právna ochrana databáz – Databáza, ktorá nie je chránená autorským právom ani právom sui generis – Zmluvné obmedzenie práv používateľov databázy) Jazyk konania: holandčina Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom Žalobkyňa: Ryanair Ltd Žalovaná: PR Aviation BV Výrok rozsudku Smernica Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 96/9/ES z 11. marca 1996 o právnej ochrane databáz sa má vykladať v tom zmysle, že sa neuplatní na databázu, ktorá nie je podľa uvedenej smernice chránená autorským právom ani právom sui generis, pričom však článok 6 ods. 1 a články 8 a 15 danej smernice nebránia tomu, aby zhotoviteľ takej databázy stanovil zmluvné obmedzenia jej

Veci - InfoCuria - Súdny dvor Európskej únie

## C-30/14 - Ryanair

Zobraziť podrobnosti v bočnom paneli

22/01/2014 - 15/01/2015

Skončené

Súdny dvor

Skóre : 100%

  * ### Rozsudok (Ú. v.), 13/02/2015

EUR-Lex Uverejnený v Zbierke

Rozsudok Súdneho dvora (druhá komora) z 15. januára 2015 (návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Hoge Raad der Nederlanden – Holandsko) – Ryanair Ltd/PR Aviation BV (vec C-30/14)1 (Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania – Smernica 96/9/ES – Právna ochrana databáz – Databáza, ktorá nie je chránená autorským právom ani právom sui generis – Zmluvné obmedzenie práv používateľov databázy) Jazyk konania: holandčina Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom Žalobkyňa: Ryanair Ltd Žalovaná: PR Aviation BV Výrok rozsudku Smernica Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 96/9/ES z 11. marca 1996 o právnej ochrane databáz sa má vykladať v tom zmysle, že sa neuplatní na databázu, ktorá nie je podľa uvedenej smernice chránená autorským právom ani právom sui generis, pričom však článok 6 ods. 1 a články 8 a 15 danej smernice nebránia tomu, aby zhotoviteľ takej databázy stanovil zmluvné obmedzenia jej
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Дела - InfoCuria - Съд на Европейския съюз (https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?language=bg&num=C-762%2F19&td=ALL)
citeturn12search4 [wordlim: 200] Published: 5.1 years ago; Crawled: 2 weeks ago; (преюдициално запитване от Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija — Латвия) — „CV-Online Latvia“ SIA/„Melons“ SIA (Дело C-762/19)1 (Преюдициално запитване — Правна закрила на базите данни — Директива 96/9/ЕО — Член 7 — Право „sui generis“ на производителите на бази данни — Недопускане трети лица да „извличат“ или „използват повторно“, без разрешение от производителя, цялото или съществена част от съдържанието на база данни — База данни, свободно достъпна в интернет — Метатърсачка, специализирана в търсенето на обяви за работа — Извличане и/или повторно използване на съдържанието на база данни — Засягане на съществена инвестиция в придобиването, проверката или оформлението на съдържанието на база данни) Език на производството: латвийски Запитваща юрисдикция Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija Страни в главното производство Ищец: „CV-Online Latvia“ SIA Ответник: „Melons“ SIA Диспозитив Член 7, параграфи 1 и 2 от Директива 96/9/ЕО на Европейския парламент и Съвета от 11

Дела - InfoCuria - Съд на Европейския съюз

## C-762/19 - CV-Online Latvia

Показване на подробната информация в страничния блок

17/10/2019 - 03/06/2021

Приключено

Съд

Оценка : 100%

  * ### Решение (ОВ), 02/07/2021

EUR-Lex Публикувано в Сборника

(преюдициално запитване от Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija — Латвия) — „CV-Online Latvia“ SIA/„Melons“ SIA (Дело C-762/19)1 (Преюдициално запитване — Правна закрила на базите данни — Директива 96/9/ЕО — Член 7 — Право „sui generis“ на производителите на бази данни — Недопускане трети лица да „извличат“ или „използват повторно“, без разрешение от производителя, цялото или съществена част от съдържанието на база данни — База данни, свободно достъпна в интернет — Метатърсачка, специализирана в търсенето на обяви за работа — Извличане и/или повторно използване на съдържанието на база данни — Засягане на съществена инвестиция в придобиването, проверката или оформлението на съдържанието на база данни) Език на производството: латвийски Запитваща юрисдикция Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija Страни в главното производство Ищец: „CV-Online Latvia“ SIA Ответник: „Melons“ SIA Диспозитив Член 7, параграфи 1 и 2 от Директива 96/9/ЕО на Европейския парламент и Съвета от 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zaken - InfoCuria - Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie (https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?jur=C%2CT%2CF&language=nl&num=C-30%2F14&td=ALL)
citeturn12search5 [wordlim: 200] Published: 11.5 years ago; Crawled: 3 weeks ago; Arrest van het Hof (Tweede kamer) van 15 januari 2015 (verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing ingediend door de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) – Ryanair Ltd/PR Aviation BV (Zaak C-30/14)1 (Prejudiciële verwijzing – Richtlijn 96/9/EG – Rechtsbescherming van databanken – Databank die niet wordt beschermd door het auteursrecht of door het recht sui generis – Contractuele beperking van de rechten van gebruikers van de databank) Procestaal: Nederlands Verwijzende rechter Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Partijen in het hoofdgeding Verzoekende partij: Ryanair Ltd Verwerende partij: PR Aviation BV Dictum Richtlijn 96/9/EG van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 11 maart 1996 betreffende de rechtsbescherming van databanken moet aldus worden uitgelegd dat zij geen toepassing vindt wanneer een databank niet op grond van deze richtlijn wordt beschermd door het auteursrecht of door het recht sui generis, zodat de artikelen 6, lid 1, 8 en 15 van de richtlijn zich er niet tegen verzetten dat de maker van een
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asiat - InfoCuria - Euroopan unionin tuomioistuin (https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?language=fi&num=C-762%2F19&td=ALL)
citeturn12search6 [wordlim: 200] Published: 5.1 years ago; Crawled: 2 weeks ago; ”Melons” SIA (asia C-762/19)1 (Ennakkoratkaisupyyntö – Tietokantojen oikeudellinen suoja – Direktiivi 96/9/EY – 7 artikla – Tietokantojen valmistajien sui generis ‑oikeus – Kolmansille osapuolille asetettu kielto kopioida tai käyttää uudelleen tietokannan koko sisältöä tai sen olennaista osaa ilman tietokannan valmistajan lupaa – Internetsivustolla vapaasti käytettävissä oleva tietokanta – Työpaikkailmoitusten hakuun erikoistunut metahakukone – Tietokannan sisällön kopiointi ja/tai uudelleenkäyttö – Tietokannan sisällön keräämiseen, varmistamiseen tai esittämiseen tehdylle huomattavalle investoinnille aiheutuva vahinko) Oikeudenkäyntikieli: latvia Ennakkoratkaisua pyytänyt tuomioistuin Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija Pääasian asianosaiset Valittaja: ”CV-Online Latvia” SIA Vastapuoli: ”Melons”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kawżi - InfoCuria - Il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea (https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?language=MT&num=C-202%2F12)
citeturn12search7 [wordlim: 200] Published: 12.6 years ago; Crawled: 3 weeks ago; Sentenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja (Il-Ħames Awla) tad-19 ta’ Diċembru 2013 (talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari ta’ Gerechtshof ’s-Gravenhage - Il-Pajjiżi l-Baxxi) – Innoweb BV vs Wegener ICT Media BV, Wegener Mediaventions BV (Kawża C-202/12) 1 (Direttiva 96/9/KE — Protezzjoni legali tad-databases — Artikolu 7(1) u (5) — Dritt sui generis tal-persuna li tkun ħolqot database — Kunċett ta’ ‘użu mill-ġdid’ — Parti sostanzjali tal-kontenut tad-database — Metamutur ta’ tfittxija speċifiku) Lingwa tal-kawża: l-Olandiż Qorti tar-rinviju Gerechtshof Den Haag, li kienet Gerechtshof ’s-Gravenhage Partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali Rikorrenti: Innoweb BV Konvenuti: Wegener ICT Media BV, Wegener Mediaventions BV Suġġett Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari - Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage - Il-Pajjiżi l-Baxxi - Interpretazzjoni tal-Artikolu 7(1) u (5) tad-Direttiva 96/9/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tal-11 ta’ Marzu 1996, dwar il-protezzjoni legali ta’ databases (ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/document/document.jsf%3Bjsessionid%3D974993CBFB778F702C0F4D43BD900F20?cid=7577162&dir=&docid=242039&doclang=el&mode=lst&occ=first&pageIndex=0&part=1&text=)
citeturn12search8 [wordlim: 200] Published: 5.1 years ago; Crawled: last month; 10      Επιπροσθέτως, ο ιστότοπος www.cv.lv περιέχει μεταετικέτες (meta tags), τύπου «μικροδεδομένων» (microdata). ... Πράγματι, σε τέτοια περίπτωση, ο χρήστης δεν έχει πλέον ανάγκη να επισκεφθεί την αρχική σελίδα υποδοχής και να χρησιμοποιήσει το τυποποιημένο έντυπο αναζητήσεως της βάσεως δεδομένων του οικείου τρίτου, δεδομένου ότι μπορεί να ερευνήσει τη βάση δεδομένων απευθείας, κάνοντας χρήση της υπηρεσίας του διαχειριστή της μεταμηχανής αναζητήσεως (πρβλ. απόφαση της 19ης Δεκεμβρίου 2013, Innoweb, C‑202/12, EU:C:2013:850, σκέψεις 40 έως 42).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lietas - InfoCuria - Eiropas Savienības Tiesa (https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?language=LV&num=C-202%2F12)
citeturn12search9 [wordlim: 200] Published: 12.6 years ago; Crawled: 3 weeks ago; TIESAS SPRIEDUMS (piektā palāta) 2013. gada 19. decembrī (*) Direktīva 96/9/EK – Datubāzu tiesiskā aizsardzība – 7. panta 1. un 5. punkts – Datubāzes veidotāja sui generis tiesības – Jēdziens “atkārtota izmantošana” – Datubāzes satura būtiska daļa – Īpašmeklēšanas metameklētājs Lieta C‑202/12 par lūgumu sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu atbilstoši LESD 267. pantam, ko Gerechtshof te ‘s‑Gravenhage (Nīderlande) iesniedza ar lēmumu, kas pieņemts 2012. gada 27. martā un kas Tiesā reģistrēts 2012. gada 30. aprīlī, tiesvedībā Innoweb BV pret Wegener ICT Media BV, Wegener Mediaventions BV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asunto C-203/02 (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf%3Bjsessionid%3D4E86DD598320F72C12D2131EEC4D7B94?cid=306499&dir=&docid=64559&doclang=ES&mode=lst&occ=first&pageIndex=0&part=1&text=)
citeturn12search15 [wordlim: 200] Published: 1.1 years ago; Asunto C-203/02The British Horseracing Board Ltd y otros ... William Hill Organization Ltd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veci - InfoCuria - Súdny dvor Európskej únie (https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?language=SK&num=C-202%2F12)
citeturn12search10 [wordlim: 200] Published: 12.6 years ago; Crawled: 3 weeks ago; Rozsudok Súdneho dvora (piata komora) z 19. decembra 2013 (návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Gerechtshof te ʼs-Gravenhage – Holandsko) – Innoweb BV/Wegener ICT Media BV, Wegener Mediaventions BV (vec C-202/12)1 (Smernica 96/9/ES – Právna ochrana databáz – Článok 7 ods. 1 a 5 – Právo sui generis zostavovateľa databázy – Pojem „reutilizácia“ – Podstatná časť obsahu databázy – Špecifický meta-vyhľadávač) Jazyk konania: holandčina Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania Gerechtshof Den Haag, pôvodne Gerechtshof te ʼs-Gravenhage Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom Žalobkyňa: Innoweb BV Žalovaní: Wegener ICT Media BV, Wegener Mediaventions BV Predmet veci Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania – Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage – Holandsko – Výklad článku 7 ods. 1 a ods. 5 smernice Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 96/9/ES z 11. marca 1996 o právnej ochrane databáz (Ú. v.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sprawy - InfoCuria - Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej (https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?language=PL&num=C-202%2F12)
citeturn12search11 [wordlim: 200] Published: 12.6 years ago; Crawled: last month; Sprawa C‑202/12 Innoweb BV przeciwko Wegener ICT Media BV i Wegener Mediaventions BV (wniosek o wydanie orzeczenia w trybie prejudycjalnym złożony przez Gerechtshof te ‘s-Gravenhage) Dyrektywa 96/9/WE – Ochrona prawna baz danych – Artykuł 7 ust. 1 i 5 – Prawo sui generis producenta bazy danych – Pojęcie „wtórnego wykorzystywania” – Istotna część zawartości bazy danych – Metawyszukiwarka ukierunkowana Streszczenie – Wyrok Trybunału (piąta izba) z dnia 19 grudnia 2013 r.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c-nt(i9 -t
Reģistrs ar Nr.
, liesas
1/6 n fa
**■*■ (https://infocuriaws.curia.europa.eu/blob/download-file/225762/LV/pdf)
citeturn12search16 [wordlim: 200] Published: 4 months ago; c-nt(i9 -t ... CA-1319-19/23 ... piedaloties prasītājas SIA “CV-Online Latvia” pārstāvei zvērinātai advokātei Līgai Fjodorovai ... intemeta vietni www.cv.lv, kura nodrošina darba un darbinieku meklēšanas iespējas.


Input: const r = await tools.web__run({search_query:[{q:"site:eur-lex.europa.eu Directive 96/9 Article 7 database repeated systematic extraction re-utilisation official"},{q:"site:likumi.lv Negodīgas konkurences likums Latvia unfair competition English official"},{q:"site:likumi.lv Informācijas tehnoloģiju drošības likums unauthorized access information system Latvia English"},{q:"site:eur-lex.europa.eu Directive 2013/40/EU illegal access information systems without right technological measure"}],"response_length":"long"}); text(r);


Question: site:eur-lex.europa.eu Directive 96/9 Article 7 database repeated systematic extraction re-utilisation official ...

site:likumi.lv Negodīgas konkurences likums Latvia unfair competition English official

site:likumi.lv Informācijas tehnoloģiju drošības likums unauthorized access information system Latvia English

site:eur-lex.europa.eu Directive 2013/40/EU illegal access information systems without right technological measure


Script completed
Wall time 1.8 seconds
Output:

Konkurences likums (https://likumi.lv/ta/en/id/54890-competition-law)
citeturn13search0 [wordlim: 200] Published: 24.8 years ago; Crawled: 3 days ago; Terms Used in this Law The following terms are used in this Law: 1) dominant position - an economic (commercial) position in a relevant market of a market participant or several market participants if such participant or such participants have the capacity to significantly prevent, restrict or distort competition in any relevant market for a sufficient period of time by acting with full or partial independence from competitors, clients, suppliers or consumers; 1^{1}) European Competition Network - the network of public authorities which is formed by the competition authorities and the task of which is to serve a forum for discussions and cooperation as regards the application and enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; 1^{2}) leniency programme - a programme which is implemented in order to apply Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Section 11 of this Law in accordance with which a participant to an agreement of leniency programme, independently of the other market participants involved in the violation, cooperates in investigation with the competition authority, voluntarily providing the information known to it on the violation and its role therein in return for which receiving, by a relevant decision or by a discontinuation of proceedings, immunity from, or a reduction of, the fine for its involvement in the violation; 1^{3}) leniency statement - an oral or written presentation voluntarily provided by, or on behalf of, a market participant or a natural person to a competition authority or a record of the abovementioned information where the information at the disposal of that market participant or natural person on agreement of leniency programme and the role of that market participant or natural person therein is described, and which was drawn up specifically for submission to the relevant competition authority with a view to obtaining immunity or a reduction of fines under a leniency programme, and which does not include evidence that exists irrespective of the enforcement proceedings, whether or not such information is in the file materials of a competition authority, namely pre-existing information; 1^{4}) applicant for a leniency programme - a market participant that applies for immunity from, or a reduction of, a fine under a leniency programme; 1^{5}) agreement of leniency programme - cartel, vertical agreement on the determination of resale price or agreement on passive sale restriction prohibition; 1^{6}) settlement submission - the information provided voluntarily by, or on behalf of, a market participant to a competition authority where the market participant acknowledges or refuses to dispute its participation in the violation referred to in Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Section 11, Paragraph one or Section 13 of this Law and its responsibility for the abovementioned violation, and which was drawn up specifically to enable the competition authority to apply a simplified or expedited investigation of the case; 2) decisive influence - the capability, directly or indirectly, to: a) control (regularly or irregularly) the taking of decisions in market participant supervisory bodies, with or without active participation thereof, b) appoint such number of members in the market participant supervisory or executive body, which ensures for the wielder of the decisive influence a majority of votes in the respective body; 2^{1}) cartel agreement - an agreement between competitors aimed at preventing, restricting, or distorting competition by implementing, but not limited to, fixing or coordination of purchase or selling prices or other trading conditions, including in relation to intellectual property rights, the allocation of production or sales quotas, the sharing of markets and customers, including participation or non-participation in competitions or auctions or an agreement on the provisions for such actions (inactions), the restrictions of import or export or anticompetitive activities against other competitors; 3) relevant geographical market - a geographical territory in which competition conditions in a relevant market of a product are sufficiently the same for all participants in such market and therefore this territory can be separated from other territories; 4) relevant market - the relevant product market which has been evaluated in connection with a relevant geographical market; 5) relevant product market - a particular product market which also includes all those products which may be substituted for this particular product in a relevant geographical market, taking into consideration the factor of substitution of demand and supply, the specific features of the product and characteristics of its use; 6) competition - the existing or potential economic (commercial) rivalry between two or more market participants in a relevant market; 6^{1}) competition authority - a competition authority of the Member State or the European Commission or both, as the context may require; 7) competitors - two or more market participants who compete; 7^{1}) indirect purchaser - a natural or legal person who has acquired, not directly from an infringer, but from a direct purchaser or a subsequent purchaser, goods that are the object of an infringement of competition law, or goods containing them or derived therefrom; 7^{2}) infringer - a market participant or an association of market participants which has committed an infringement of competition law; 7^{3}) overcharge - difference between the price actually paid and the price that would otherwise have prevailed in the absence of an infringement of competition law; 7^{4}) applicant authority - a competition authority of the Member State which submits the request for mutual assistance provided for in Chapter IX of this Law; 7^{5}) requested authority - a competition authority of the Member State which receives a request for mutual assistance and in relation to the request for mutual assistance referred to in Chapter IX of this Law may be a competent public body which has principal responsibility for the enforcement of such decisions under national laws, regulations and administrative practice; 8) product - tangible or intangible property or service which satisfies some need and for which a price may be specified when purchasing or selling such product on the market; 8^{1}) direct purchaser - a natural or legal person who has acquired, directly from an infringer, goods that are the object of an infringement of competition law; 9) market participant - any person (also foreign persons), who performs or is preparing to perform economic activity in the territory of Latvia or whose activity shall influence competition in the territory of Latvia.
#### Chapter V
Unfair Competition

Section 18. Prohibition of Unfair Competition (1) Unfair competition is prohibited. (2) Actions, as the result of which laws and regulations or fair commercial practices are violated and competition is or might be prevented, restricted or distorted, shall be deemed to be unfair competition. (3) Unfair competition may also occur in the form of the following activities if as a result of such activities competition is or might be prevented, restricted or distorted: 1) the use or imitation of a legally used name, distinguishing marks or other features of another market participant (whether existing, having ceased its activities or reorganised) if such use may be misleading as regards the identity of the market participant; 2) the imitation of the name, external appearance, labelling, or packaging of products produced or sold by another market participant, or the use of trademarks, if such imitation or use may be misleading as regards the origin of the products; 3) the dissemination of false, incomplete or distorted information regarding other market participants or their employees, as well as, in respect of the products produced or sold by such a market participant, the economic significance, quality, form of production, characteristics, quantity, usefulness, prices, their formation and other provisions, which may cause losses to this market participant; 4) the acquisition, use or distribution of information, which includes the commercial secrets of another market participant, without the consent of such participant; 5) the coercion of employees of another market participant with threats or bribery in order to create advantages for one's own economic activity, thereby causing losses to this market participant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zaudējis spēku - Informācijas tehnoloģiju drošības likums (https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/220962-law-on-the-security-of-information-)
citeturn13search1 [wordlim: 200] Published: 15.7 years ago; Crawled: last month; [11 October 2018] This Law contains norms arising from: 1) Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2009/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Text with EEA relevance); 2) Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union. ... ^{1} The Parliament of the Republic of Latvia Translation © 2019 Valsts valodas centrs (State Language Centre)  |    | Document information Title: Informācijas tehnoloģiju drošības likums Status: No longer in force no longer in force Issuer: Saeima Type: law Adoption: 28.10.2010.
(2) The security of information technologies shall be guarded in such a way that it is possible to make early forecasts and to prevent, as well as to overcome danger to such security and eliminate the consequences thereof. (3) Within the meaning of this Law information technologies are technologies, which perform electronic processing of information, including creation, deletion, storage, display or forwarding, for execution of the tasks provided for such technologies. Section 2. Application of this Law (1) This Law shall apply to State and local government authorities, as well as merchants and other legal persons governed by private law (hereinafter - legal persons governed by private law). (2) This Law shall not apply to the content of the information transmitted in electronic communications networks (for example, to the content of services of an information society and to audiovisual productions). Section 3. Critical Infrastructure of Information Technologies (1) The critical infrastructure of information technologies is an infrastructure, which is approved by the Cabinet in accordance with the National Security Law. (2) The critical infrastructure of information technologies shall be defended in order to provide the performance of the basic functions essential to the State and society. Moreover, the integrity, availability and confidentiality of the critical infrastructure of information technologies shall be ensured. (3) The procedures for the planning and implementation of security measures for the critical infrastructure of information technologies shall be stipulated by the Cabinet.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUR-Lex - 62002CJ0203 - IT - EUR-Lex (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A62002CJ0203)
citeturn13search2 [wordlim: 200] Published: 21.7 years ago; Crawled: last week; Article 7(5) of Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases, which prohibits, in certain cases, the repeated and systematic extraction and/or re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the contents of the database, refers in particular to unauthorised acts of extraction and/or re-utilisation the cumulative effect of which is to reconstitute and/or make available to the public, without the authorisation of the maker of the database, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of that database and thereby seriously prejudice the investment by the maker.
Those terms do not imply direct access to the database concerned.

The fact that the contents of a database were made accessible to the public by its maker or with his consent does not affect the right of the maker to prevent acts of extraction and/or re-utilisation of the whole or a substantial part of those contents.

(see para. 67, operative part 2)

3.        The expression ‘substantial part, evaluated … quantitatively, of the contents of [a] database’ in Article 7 of Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases refers to the volume of data extracted from the database and/or re-utilised and must be assessed in relation to the total volume of the contents of the database. The expression ‘substantial part, evaluated qualitatively … of the contents of [a] database’ refers to the scale of the investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of the subject of the act of extraction and/or re-utilisation, regardless of whether that subject represents a quantitatively substantial part of the general contents of the protected database.

Any part which does not fulfil the definition of a substantial part, evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively, falls within the definition of an insubstantial part of the contents of a database.

(see paras 70-71, 73, operative part 3)

4.        Article 7(5) of Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases, which prohibits, in certain cases, the repeated and systematic extraction and/or re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the contents of the database, refers in particular to unauthorised acts of extraction and/or re-utilisation the cumulative effect of which is to reconstitute and/or make available to the public, without the authorisation of the maker of the database, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of that database and thereby seriously prejudice the investment by the maker.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negodīgas tirdzniecības prakses aizlieguma likums (https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/322554)
citeturn13search3 [wordlim: 200] Published: 5.3 years ago; Crawled: 3 weeks ago; Terms Used in the Law The following terms are used in the Law: 1) perishable agricultural and food products - agricultural and food products which by their nature or at their stage of processing are liable to become unfit for sale within 30 days after harvest, production or processing; 2) agricultural and food products - products listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and also products not listed in the abovementioned Annex, but processed for use as food using products listed in the abovementioned Annex, and also packaged water, including mineral water, and other non-alcoholic beverages; 3) supplier of agricultural and food products - a producer of agricultural and food products or any natural or legal person or an association of such persons, including a producer organisation, a supplier organisation and an association of such organisations which sell agricultural and food products irrespective of the place of economic activity thereof; 4) retailer of agricultural and food products - a performer of economic activity or an association of the performers of economic activity which sells agricultural and food products in retail at a permanent sales location; 5) retailer of non-food products - a performer of economic activity or an association of the performers of economic activity which sells products other than agricultural an food products in retail at a permanent sales location and which, considering their buying power for a sufficient period of time and the dependency of suppliers in the relevant market, have the capacity of directly or indirectly applying or imposing unfair and unjustified provisions, conditions or payments upon suppliers and may hinder, restrict or distort competition in retail trade in the relevant market of products in the territory of Latvia; 6) supplier - a supplier of agricultural and food products or a person who sells products to a retailer of non-food products; 7) buyer - a natural or legal person or an association of such persons irrespective of their place of economic activity if its net turnover in the last financial year exceeds EUR 2 000 000 or an institution in the European Union (national, regional or local institution or an association of several such institutions which operates in accordance with the principles of public law) that purchases agricultural and food products.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directive - 2013/40 - DE - EUR-Lex (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32013L0040)
citeturn13search4 [wordlim: 200] Published: 13.0 years ago; Crawled: 5 days ago; (17)  | This Directive does not impose criminal liability where the objective criteria of the offences laid down in this Directive are met but the acts are committed without criminal intent, for instance where a person does not know that access was unauthorised or in the case of mandated testing or protection of information systems, such as where a person is assigned by a company or vendor to test the strength of its security system. ... This Directive is without prejudice to the right of access to information as laid down in national and Union law, while at the same time it may not serve as a justification for unlawful or arbitrary access to information. ... Illegal access to information systemsMember States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, when committed intentionally, the access without right, to the whole or to any part of an information system, is punishable as a criminal offence where committed by infringing a security measure, at least for cases which are not minor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valsts informācijas sistēmu likums (https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/62324-law-on-state-information-systems)
citeturn13search5 [wordlim: 200] Published: 24.2 years ago; Crawled: 2 weeks ago; (2) The tasks of the Law are as follows: 1) to determine unified procedures by which State platforms and State information systems or information systems of the authority are established, registered, maintained, used, shared, reorganised, or liquidated; 2) [5 June 2014]; 3) to determine the functions of the State information system manager and the rights and obligations of a data subject of the State information system (hereinafter - the data subject); 4) to govern the security management of State information systems; 5) to lay down the requirements to be conformed to for the protection of the State information systems' integrator and the State information systems being part of an integrated State information system; 6) to regulate the procedures by which the circulation of information is ensured with the assistance of a State information systems' integrator; 7) to govern the procedures by which private individuals use the State platform to provide their own services. ... Scope of Application of the Law (1) The Law shall apply to the State information systems the use of which ensures the fulfilment of the functions and tasks of authorities laid down in the laws and regulations and the international agreements binding on Latvia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directive - 96/9 - LT - EUR-Lex (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A31996L0009)
citeturn13search6 [wordlim: 200] Published: 30.4 years ago; Crawled: 5 days ago; (18)  | Whereas this Directive is without prejudice to the freedom of authors to decide whether, or in what manner, they will allow their works to be included in a database, in particular whether or not the authorization given is exclusive; whereas the protection of databases by the sui generis right is without prejudice to existing rights over their contents, and whereas in particular where an author or the holder of a related right permits some of his works or subject matter to be included in a database pursuant to a non-exclusive agreement, a third party may make use of those works or subject matter subject to the required consent of the author or of the holder of the related right without the sui generis right of the maker of the database being invoked to prevent him doing so, on condition that those works or subject matter are neither extracted from the database nor re-utilized on the basis thereof; ... The repeated and systematic extraction and/or re-utilization of insubstantial parts of the contents of the database implying acts which conflict with a normal exploitation of that database or which unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the maker of the database shall not be permitted. ... The right provided for in Article 7 shall run from the date of completion of the making of the database.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directive - 96/9 - EL - EUR-Lex (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A31996L0009)
citeturn13search7 [wordlim: 200] Published: 30.4 years ago; Crawled: 5 days ago; Article 7 ... Les États membres prévoient pour le fabricant d'une base de données le droit d'interdire l'extraction et/ou la réutilisation de la totalité ou d'une partie substantielle, évaluée de façon qualitative ou quantitative, du contenu de celle-ci, lorsque l'obtention, la vérification ou la présentation de ce contenu attestent un investissement substantiel du point de vue qualitatif ou quantitatif.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nacionālās kiberdrošības likums (https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/353390-national-cybersecurity-law)
citeturn13search8 [wordlim: 200] Published: 2.0 years ago; Crawled: last week; Terms Used in the Law The following terms are used in the Law: 1) maintainer of the top-level domain name registry - the authority to which a specific top-level domain has been delegated and which is responsible for the management of such top-level domain, including the registration of domain names in such top-level domain and the technical operation of the top-level domain, and also the operation of its name servers, the maintenance of databases, and the distribution of top-level domain zone files between name servers, regardless of whether any of such activities are performed by the authority itself, except for the use of top-level domain names solely for its own purposes, or by an outsourcing service provider; 2) data centre - a premise or a group of premises dedicated to the centralised deployment, interconnection, and operation of information technology and network equipment and providing data storage, processing, and forwarding (transport) services and also all the equipment and infrastructure necessary for the distribution of electricity and climate control; 3) domain name registration service provider - a registrar or an authorised person acting on behalf of the registrar, for example, a privacy or proxy registration service provider or reseller; 4) domain name system - a hierarchical distributed naming system which enables the identification of internet services and resources, allowing end-user devices to use internet routing and connectivity services to reach the respective services and resources; 5) near miss - an event that could have compromised the availability, authenticity, integrity, or confidentiality of processed data or of the services offered by, or accessible via, network and information systems, but that was successfully prevented from materialising or that did not materialise; 6) vulnerability - a weakness, susceptibility to technical problems, or flaw of information and communication technologies or their services which can be exploited by a cyber threat; 7) information and communication technologies - technologies which electronically process information, including create, modify, delete, store, display, forward, or transmit it (hereinafter - the electronic processing), for the fulfilment of their intended tasks with the help of technical aids and ensure communication between technology users; 8) internet exchange point - a network facility which enables the interconnection of more than two independent networks (autonomous systems), primarily for the purpose of facilitating the exchange of internet traffic, which provides interconnection only for autonomous systems and which neither requires the internet traffic passing between any pair of participating autonomous systems to pass through any third autonomous system nor alters or otherwise interferes with such traffic; 9) cyber threat - any potential circumstance, event, or action corresponding to the definition laid down in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2019/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification and repealing Regulation (EU) No 526/2013 (Cybersecurity Act) (hereinafter - Regulation 2019/881); 10) cybersecurity - activities corresponding to the definition laid down in Article 2(1) of Regulation 2019/881; 11) cybersecurity incident (hereinafter - the cyber incident) - an event compromising the availability, authenticity, integrity, or confidentiality of processed data or of the services offered by, or accessible via, network and information systems; 12) cyber hygiene - an aggregate of everyday practices and habits for the purpose of minimising cyber threats, ensuring data protection, and retaining the availability, integrity, and confidentiality of information and communication technologies; 13) cyber incident handling - any actions and procedures aiming to prevent, detect, analyse, and contain or to respond to and recover from a cyber incident; 14) cyber risk - the potential for loss or disruption of services caused by the cyber incident which is to be expressed as a combination of the magnitude of such loss or disruption and the likelihood of occurrence of the incident; 15) cyberattack - an active act by an attacker for the purpose of disrupting the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of data and services of information and communication technologies; 16) large performer of economic activity - a legal or natural person, or an association of such persons which or who performs economic activity in the Republic of Latvia and conforms to at least one of the following features: a) the performer of economic activity employs at least 250 employees; b) the total net turnover of the last financial year of the performer of economic activity exceeds EUR 50 million and the annual balance sheet total exceeds EUR 43 million; 17) National Cybersecurity Strategy - a strategic planning document which lays down the basic principles for the making of cybersecurity policy, the objective and strategic priorities thereof; 18) significant cyber threat - a cyber threat which, taking into account its technical properties, may seriously disrupt the network and information systems of any legal or natural person or recipients of the services provided by such person, causing considerable material or non-material damage; 19) significant cyber incident - a cross-border cyber incident or such cyber incident which has an impact on the continuity of the service provided or on public interests and which meets the criteria determined by the Cabinet; 20) denial of service cyberattack - an attack made against the infrastructure of the service provider for the purpose of disrupting the availability of the service; 21) cross-border cyber incident - an incident causing a level of disruption which exceeds the capacity of a Member State to respond or which has an essential impact on at least two Member States; 22) network and information system: a) an electronic communications network; b) any device or a group of interconnected or related devices one or more of which, according to a programme, carry out automatic processing of digital data; c) digital data stored, processed, retrieved, or transmitted by elements covered under Sub-clauses "a" and "b" of this Clause for the purposes of their operation, use, protection, and maintenance; 23) security of network and information systems - the ability of network and information systems to resist, at a given level of confidence, any event that may compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data to be processed electronically or of the services offered by, or accessible via, such network and information systems; 24) trust service - an electronic service within the meaning of Article 3(16) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC; 25) medium performer of economic activity - a legal or natural person, or an association of such persons, which or who performs economic activity in the Republic of Latvia and conforms to all of the following features: 1) the performer of economic activity employs up to 249 employees; 2) the total net turnover of the last financial year of the performer of economic activity is at least EUR 10 million, but does not exceed EUR 50 million, or the annual balance sheet total thereof is at least EUR 10 million, but does not exceed EUR 43 million; 26) unified national internet exchange point - a constant aggregate of physical infrastructure and services which is established and maintained in order to ensure unified national internet exchange.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negodīgas komercprakses aizlieguma likums (https://likumi.lv/ta/en/id/167759-unfair-commercial-%E2%80%8Bpractices-prohibition-law)
citeturn13search9 [wordlim: 200] Published: 3.4 years ago; Crawled: 6 days ago; ### Unfair Commercial Practices Prohibition Law ... ^{2} Legal Remedies (1) A consumer against whom an unfair commercial practice has been implemented or who is affected by an unfair commercial practice, proportionately to the degree of severity and nature thereof, may exercise the right to request the following from the performer of commercial practices who is responsible for the unfair commercial practice: 1) reduction of the price of goods, service, digital service, or digital content; 2) cancellation of the contract and repayment of the paid amount of money to the consumer; 3) compensation for damage caused to the consumer in the case of implementation of unfair commercial practice. ... Aggressive and Persistent Deeds, Coercion and Use of Undue Influence (1) A commercial practice shall be considered aggressive if, taking into account all its features and all circumstances - persistent deeds, coercion, use of physical force or undue influence, it has or may have a substantial effect on the average consumer's freedom of choice or conduct with regard to the goods, service, digital service, or digital content and as a result thereof the consumer takes or may take a decision on actions relating to a transaction which he or she would not have taken otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direktiva - 2013/40 - EN - EUR-Lex (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013L0040)
citeturn13search10 [wordlim: 200] Published: 12.9 years ago; Crawled: 3 months ago; Članak 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valsts informācijas sistēmu likums (https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=62324)
citeturn13search11 [wordlim: 200] Published: 2.6 years ago; Crawled: 3 months ago; Likumā lietotie termini Likumā ir lietoti šādi termini:1) valsts informācijas sistēma — informācijas sistēma, kuras darbību nodrošina tiešās pārvaldes iestāde, valsts institūcija, kas nav Ministru kabineta padotībā, atvasināta publiska persona vai tās iestāde, tiesu iestāde, prokuratūra, kā arī privātpersona, kurai deleģēts valsts pārvaldes uzdevums, (turpmāk — institūcija) un kura nodrošina valsts pārvaldes funkcijas vai deleģēta valsts pārvaldes uzdevuma izpildei nepieciešamās informācijas ierosināšanu, radīšanu, apkopošanu, uzkrāšanu, apstrādāšanu, izmantošanu un iznīcināšanu (turpmāk — informācijas aprite);2) valsts informācijas sistēmas pārzinis — institūcija, kas normatīvajos aktos noteiktajā kārtībā organizē un vada valsts informācijas sistēmas darbību;3) (izslēgts ar 05.05.2022. likumu);4) valsts informācijas sistēmas lietotājs — juridiskā vai fiziskā persona, kura noslēgusi līgumu ar valsts informācijas sistēmas pārzini par datu lietošanu vai kura uz pieprasījuma pamata saņem datus valsts informācijas sistēmas pārziņa vai normatīvajos aktos noteiktajā kārtībā;5) valsts informācijas sistēmas datu subjekts — institūcija vai privātpersona, kura normatīvajos aktos noteiktajā kārtībā sniedz datus par sevi un sev piekritīgajiem reģistrējamiem juridiski dokumentētiem objektiem (turpmāk — piekritīgie reģistrējamie objekti);6) integrēta valsts informācijas sistēma — loģiska valsts informācijas sistēmu apvienība, kuras ietvaros vienotā informācijas laukā tiek uzturēti atsevišķu valsts informācijas sistēmu dati;7) (izslēgts ar 26.09.2019. likumu);8) valsts informācijas sistēmu savietotājs — centralizēts informācijas tehnoloģiju kopums, ar kura palīdzību var nodrošināt informācijas apriti integrētas valsts informācijas sistēmas ietvaros, kā arī starp valsts informācijas sistēmām un citām informācijas sistēmām, kuras veido un uztur institūcijas vai privātpersonas;9) (izslēgts ar 05.06.2014.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A32013L0040)
citeturn13search12 [wordlim: 200] Published: 12.9 years ago; 14.8.2013 ... (a) ‘information system’ means a device or group of inter- ... (c) ‘legal person’ means an entity having the status of legal ... (d) ‘without right’ means conduct referred to in this Directive, ... system or of part of it, or not permitted under national law. ... Illegal access to information systems ... measure, at least for cases which are not minor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EN
C 102/8
Official Journal of the European Unio (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=oj%3AJOC_2009_102_R_0008_01)
citeturn13search13 [wordlim: 200] Published: 4 months ago; extraction and/or re-utilisation of a substantial part of the ... allegedly extracted and/or re-utilised from that database constitute ... extraction within the meaning of Article 7 of Directive 96/9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CL1996L0009EN0010010.0001.3bi_cp 1..1 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A01996L0009-20190606)
citeturn13search14 [wordlim: 200] Published: 7.1 years ago; 01996L0009 — EN — 06.06.2019 — 001.001 — 5 ... the eligibility of that database for protection by copyright or by other ... The repeated and systematic extraction and/or re-utilization of ... Article 9 ... Directive (EU) 2019/790;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports of Cases (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=celex%3A62012CJ0202)
citeturn13search15 [wordlim: 200] Published: 11.6 years ago; Is Article  7(5) of Directive [96/9] to be interpreted as meaning that the repeated and systematic ... database where that re-utilisation is repeated and systematic, implying acts which conflict with a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C 180/14
EN
27.7.2002
Official Journal of the Euro (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ%3AC%3A2002%3A180%3A0014%3A0015%3AEN%3APDF)
citeturn13search16 [wordlim: 200] Published: last month; Official Journal of the European Communities ... Is ‘extraction’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to the ... Is ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to ... (1) Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ... expression ‘insubstantial parts of the database’?


Input: const r = await tools.web__run({search_query:[{q:"site:eur-lex.europa.eu Directive 2019/790 Article 4 text data mining rights reserved machine readable commercial official"},{q:"site:likumi.lv copyright law Latvia database maker text data mining English official"},{q:"site:likumi.lv criminal law Latvia illegal access automated data system English section 241 official"},{q:"site:likumi.lv Latvia electronic communications cookies law information society services price comparison English"}],"response_length":"long"}); text(r);


Question: site:eur-lex.europa.eu Directive 2019/790 Article 4 text data mining rights reserved machine readable commercial official ...

site:likumi.lv copyright law Latvia database maker text data mining English official

site:likumi.lv criminal law Latvia illegal access automated data system English section 241 official

site:likumi.lv Latvia electronic communications cookies law information society services price comparison English