21–30 of 301 posts
Being a programmer not a lawyer, I like the idea of more rights for scrapers. I don't want to see the internet partitioned away and owned by a few companies, especially when that information is often called a "public profile".
LinkedIn has full control over this, it's their site. What they are fighting for is the ability to choose who gets public access to various pieces of information; which its member do not get control over.
This is just a preliminary injunction and the court has not even heard or ruled on this case. They just allowed HiQ to access the data while they wait for the scheduled court hearing to begin. The court may eventually rule very differently once they have heard all the evidence presented and weighed up existing applicable case law. The judge who issued this injunction - Edward Chen, is also the judge presiding over th…
Being a programmer not a lawyer, I like the idea of more rights for scrapers. I don't want to see the internet partitioned away and owned by a few companies, especially when that information is often called a "public profile".
Can they claim a tax credit for supporting that bandwidth usage and handling abuse?
Does anyone know where to view this ruling? I'm curious how it passes free-association muster: you're not allowed to discriminate on particular tasks, but there's no reason you can't discriminate based on eg, behavior or user-agent or IP address. It seems very strange to me that the judge would order MS to associate against their will prior to hearing the arguments.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2017_0814_h...
Being a programmer not a lawyer, I like the idea of more rights for scrapers. I don't want to see the internet partitioned away and owned by a few companies, especially when that information is often called a "public profile".
But what if you only chose to view some of the content (e.g. block ads). What if you apply your own styles to change the way that information is displayed? You're just changing the way the browser represents that data. You're not redistributing it as your own at this point. What if you store that data, but don't republish it; just used it in some each algorithms?
There are a whole lot of interesting grey areas here, but many that already have precedents that side more with the copyright holders.
Being a programmer not a lawyer, I like the idea of more rights for scrapers. I don't want to see the internet partitioned away and owned by a few companies, especially when that information is often called a "public profile".
Maybe we should just ban User Agent strings and be done with it.
This is just a preliminary injunction and the court has not even heard or ruled on this case. They just allowed HiQ to access the data while they wait for the scheduled court hearing to begin. The court may eventually rule very differently once they have heard all the evidence presented and weighed up existing applicable case law. The judge who issued this injunction - Edward Chen, is also the judge presiding over th…
Wow, those are two very big issues, that affect two very large industries, not to mention the implications and precedent for both free speech and workers' rights.
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges
and cases involving Silicon Valley companies are very often filed here, so quite a lot of the high-profile industry matters end up getting heard by the same judges!
Being a programmer not a lawyer, I like the idea of more rights for scrapers. I don't want to see the internet partitioned away and owned by a few companies, especially when that information is often called a "public profile".
If a website puts something on the public internet, it should not even be aware if it is being accessed by a scraper or a human. Maybe we should just ban User Agent strings and be done with it.