251–260 of 301 posts
I fully support this decision. If you're offering a service that is public, with the intent to your users that such information will be available publicly, you cannot then police what users of that data you consider to be "public" because it serves your business interest. LinkedIn, of course, wants to get all the benefit of the public Internet with providing as little as they can. This, coming from someone who used t…
I fully support this decision. If you're offering a service that is public, with the intent to your users that such information will be available publicly, you cannot then police what users of that data you consider to be "public" because it serves your business interest. LinkedIn, of course, wants to get all the benefit of the public Internet with providing as little as they can. This, coming from someone who used t…
Every time there is a case about whether or not information is free to use in some way, it doesn't sit well with me. As of now deep down in my heart I don't really believe in intellectual property. I do believe in respect, and in giving credit where credit is due. But when all is said and done, I don't believe in copyrighting a number. I don't believe that it is anyone's right to dictate how bits that enter devices I…
Numbers can and are used to represent anything and everything. This has implications far beyond DRM. For instance: I don't believe you have the right to use my photo to make a defamatory Facebook account in my name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then don't make your profile public. You can't expect someone to forget you once had a bad haircut just because you now got a really cool one.
The problem is you're basically saying to re-train every person who uses the internet to behave in a way completely different from what they're used to. If you think you can do that, by all means try. But don't be surprised when you find out that your expectations and their expectations were different, and you're the one they blame, and they outnumber you by a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it is. Robots.txt is just a way of politely asking people not to crawl your site. It doesn't have anything to do with the law.
Thank you. I'm not sure if this analogy is correct but isn't that like a host of a museum telling people do not take pictures yet someone did it anyway and sold the pictures he took?
If a web server, on other other hand, willingly serves content to both a browser being operated by a human, as well as screen-scraping software, then it shouldn't try to prescribe how the screen-scraper uses that information.
It would be the equivalent to, every time, asking somebody that works in the museum if you can take a picture, and them saying "yes", and then wanting to complain (or sue) afterwards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, you can do things that don't constitute trespass. But unlike what's inside a store front, you can't observe the contents of a web server without interacting with it (trespassing).
This seems really annoyingly tied to the technology of the web. If the public, non-authenticated web was built on a broadcast mechanism (like radio) instead of a request-response mechanism like HTTP, then this argument wouldn't apply. Hopefully the court considers whether it actually behaves more like the former than the latter.
The web isn't an abstraction, it's a network of privately owned servers responding to requests. This order tells a company that they can't program their servers to look at who is making the request and refuse to respond on that basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, you can do things that don't constitute trespass. But unlike what's inside a store front, you can't observe the contents of a web server without interacting with it (trespassing).
This seems really annoyingly tied to the technology of the web. If the public, non-authenticated web was built on a broadcast mechanism (like radio) instead of a request-response mechanism like HTTP, then this argument wouldn't apply. Hopefully the court considers whether it actually behaves more like the former than the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, you can do things that don't constitute trespass. But unlike what's inside a store front, you can't observe the contents of a web server without interacting with it (trespassing).
This seems really annoyingly tied to the technology of the web. If the public, non-authenticated web was built on a broadcast mechanism (like radio) instead of a request-response mechanism like HTTP, then this argument wouldn't apply. Hopefully the court considers whether it actually behaves more like the former than the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I fully support this decision. If you're offering a service that is public, with the intent to your users that such information will be available publicly, you cannot then police what users of that data you consider to be "public" because it serves your business interest. Obviously LinkedIn can't control the information itself. But this case isn't about the information in the abstract. It's about an HTTP request to…
And they do control access. When you type in a url a request is made and the server responds. Linkedin controls that response and can send back whatever it likes. McDonalds can control who they sell a burger to but if I want to give my burger to a homeless man outside they shouldn't be allowed to stop me. In this case it's worse the place will tell me the price of a burger but won't allow me to tell the anyone else.…
That's exactly what this injunction prohitibts them from doing: "To the extent LinkedIn has already put in place technology to prevent hiQ from accessing these public profiles, it is ordered to remove any such barriers"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, you can do things that don't constitute trespass. But unlike what's inside a store front, you can't observe the contents of a web server without interacting with it (trespassing).
> unlike what's inside a store front, you can't observe the contents of a web server without interacting with it (trespassing). Then what do you consider the storefront, or public facing data of a website? Just the whois info on the domain? The general public can't observe the locked contents of a server without hacking it. Hacking is trespassing. I would modify your analogy to say the store front is public facing, j…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems really annoyingly tied to the technology of the web. If the public, non-authenticated web was built on a broadcast mechanism (like radio) instead of a request-response mechanism like HTTP, then this argument wouldn't apply. Hopefully the court considers whether it actually behaves more like the former than the latter.
Even with request-response, I don't see how this would be to LinkedIn's benefit. Their server receives the request, and sends the response. If they don't want it to send the response, they can change it accordingly. If they send the response as usual, how could the request be trespassing?