281–290 of 301 posts
This type of decision might also impact Yelp or any others in similar businesses. Currently their API limits a top few reviews per business via their API, and also prohibits "scraping" of data in other means. I was going to do some experiments with larger datasets from businesses in a region, but quickly found that's not possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Consider that should anything ever happen to the sites they scrape, suddenly they become super valuable to the rest of us. That may well be true, but that value doesn't mean anyone should just be able to take that value from the company that put up the effort and investment to collect the data, and turn around an use it for their own profit. Nor does it mean that a company shouldn't be able to serve the data to who…
I'd argue if the data is being made publicly available (particularly in the case of LinkedIn where we are choosing to make our own data publicly available), it is being made publicly available, and anyone should be able to take and use that data. Our data shouldn't be what a corporation's profit (or loss of profit) is based on to begin with.
It isn't being made publicly available in that sense. LinkedIn only offers the data to site visitors (unregistered users) under the guise of a license.
> we are choosing to make our own data publicly available
This isn't true. Putting data on LinkedIn is not making it publicly available, it's sharing a copy of your data with LinkedIn, and allowing them to do whatever they want with it. Those are the terms you agree to when you register.
> Our data shouldn't be what a corporation's profit (or loss of profit) is based on to begin with.
I agree, in an ideal world, but LinkedIn does profit on your data (as do Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc.). And we are willingly sharing our data with them and allowing this to happen. There are all kinds of crappy trends with data and privacy happening, and lots of people raising red flags. Your choice is to not use those services. If you don't want LinkedIn to use your data for their profit, then don't share your data with LinkedIn. If you share your data with LinkedIn, then LinkedIn now has the right to use your data to their own advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No that's not what's happening. What was happening is that the store clerk was noticing that an employee from a competitor was coming in and asking questions about the price, and then refused to answer the questions. The judge ordered LinkedIn to respond to the competitors HTTP requests.
Where do you draw the line between this and a DoS flood of HTTP requests? At some point a provider has to be able to rate limit requests to maintain service for legitimate users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linked in never made it "public". Use of their site is and always has been licensed. https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement
For a public license to be valid, you need to be able to view the terms, to agree to them. But the EULA says that simply by accessing the site, you agree to its terms. To view the EULA, you must view the site. That's just one of many problems wrong with assuming the EULA is binding. The ruling in this case, has said it isn't, instead because some people can index and scrape (search engines), but others (startups for…
No it didn't. This injunction has temporarily prevented LinkedIn from blocking HiQ, and only HiQ, while the case is argued. The court might rule that LinkedIn can't block anyone, or they might rule that HiQ is not entitled to scrape LinkedIn's data.
> Which is an anti-trust issue.
HiQ claimed it's anti-trust using inflammatory language in their PR statement. I disagree with that assessment. LinkedIn is not preventing HiQ from collecting their own copy of the data, in any way, shape or form. HiQ is claiming they should be able to take LinkedIn's copy because the data is "public" data. Even if that's true, HiQ always has the option to get the data from the same source that LinkedIn did.
> To view the EULA, you must view the site. That's just one of the many problems wrong with assuming the EULA is binding.
Absolutely right, EULAs have all kinds of issues. In practice, the issue of having to access the site to view the license isn't a problem. You can choose after reading the EULA to not agree, and you can choose to not access any other data on LinkedIn.
But there is no reason to assume the EULA is not binding because there are no other legal documents that cover your interaction with LinkedIn, aside from any state and federal laws that might override parts of the EULA.
This is mostly irrelevant to the point I was making though, it doesn't matter if the EULA is binding. It's purpose there is to establish that LinkedIn is not providing a public service. It's communicating that there is no expectation of responsibility on the part of LinkedIn, and that doesn't really depend on whether you are specifically bound by the EULA.
It's just like a sign in a store window that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason." You can could say that the sign is not a binding contract, and go into the store naked and yelling and start breaking stuff. When they kick you out, nobody will come to the defense of your right to walk into a store that everyone else is allowed to walk into.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like you can't fart in public and charge bystanders for the scent - you can't broadcast facts into the public and expect people not to recall them. I mean, you can. But good luck with that!
"Just like you can't fart in public and charge bystanders for the scent - you can't broadcast facts into the public and expect people not to recall them. I mean, you can. But good luck with that! " Do you also believe you can take the satellite tv signals beamed at your house and decrypt them? After all, they broadcasted them as widely as they possibly could! If they didn't want you to watch them, they shouldn't have…
If the stream is unencrypted, the reasoning applies perfectly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In, I beg to differ. Their EULA covers "accessing or using" their site in any way shape or form, and defines the term "visitor" for what you're calling "public". ... You agree that by clicking “Join Now”, “Join LinkedIn”, “Sign Up” or similar, registering, accessing or using our services (described below), you are agreeing to enter into a legally bindin…
Is there any precedent for an EULA like that being enforced? Typically for a contract to be valid, acceptance has to be actively communicated. You can't be bound by a contract simply by someone saying that you have accepted it if you do something that you might have done normally.
These kinds of agreement ostensibly are enforceable, but harder to enforce.
I tried a year ago and obviously it was impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a public license to be valid, you need to be able to view the terms, to agree to them. But the EULA says that simply by accessing the site, you agree to its terms. To view the EULA, you must view the site. That's just one of many problems wrong with assuming the EULA is binding. The ruling in this case, has said it isn't, instead because some people can index and scrape (search engines), but others (startups for…
> The ruling in this case, has said it isn't No it didn't. This injunction has temporarily prevented LinkedIn from blocking HiQ, and only HiQ, while the case is argued. The court might rule that LinkedIn can't block anyone, or they might rule that HiQ is not entitled to scrape LinkedIn's data. > Which is an anti-trust issue. HiQ claimed it's anti-trust using inflammatory language in their PR statement. I disagree wit…
> No it didn't.
True. I should have said, "the ruling in this case, has said it isn't clear if the agreement should be binding".
> HiQ is claiming they should be able to take LinkedIn's copy because the data is "public" data.
Nobody is taking anybody's data. LinkedIn are providing copies of the data to anybody who views the page. You can't take something from somebody else in this context. It is not possible. Copying, and ineffective deleting are the only methods available for transfer.
> In practice, the issue of having to access the site to view the license isn't a problem. You can choose after reading the EULA to not agree, and you can choose to not access any other data on LinkedIn.
It is absolutely a problem. You don't view data. You download a copy.
You are not presented with the agreement upon visiting a public page, you first download the public page, which then links to the agreement.
Thus, when the agreement becomes enforced, you already have in your possession data from before you agreed, which is then governed by rules you were not aware of, and may not become aware of as the agreement doesn't require intervention.
If we have to come up with physical analogies for a problem that is inherently digital:
You walk into a store. The store hands you a CD, that they made just for you, saying its yours.
You then say thankyou, and only then does the store say that there are conditions attached. But you can't give the CD back. You can only agree that you will destroy it at an indeterminate time in the future. And your method of destruction is almost guaranteed to be reversible, but its all you have.
Oh, and you might not have chosen to even walk into the store. You were stumbling around other stores, and a door led you here.
In common law, once possession is established, new conditions on the possessed item are next to impossible to apply, unless the method of possession was itself a crime.
---
> But there is no reason to assume the EULA is not binding because there are no other legal documents that cover your interaction with LinkedIn, aside from any state and federal laws that might override parts of the EULA.
A EULA, as its name suggests, is a license agreement. So far as I'm aware, most nations capable of accessing LinkedIn have a definition of a license agreement. Insofar as I'm aware, they all require a license agreement to at least be:
"A valid agreement between two parties, where both parties have read, understood and accepted responsibilities (or had ample opportunity to do so), pertaining to the use of the licensed item."
Prior knowledge is a requirement. You can't agree to something you haven't had the opportunity to comprehend.
But LinkedIn happily gives you a copy of their data before you are able to access the agreement. (Such as if your first visit was to a public profile page).
There are many laws that may invalidate the EULA.
---
> It's purpose there is to establish that LinkedIn is not providing a public service.
Its purpose is irrelevant if it is not binding.
A store can put a sign up, saying that only customers who buy a product before leaving may enter. But if someone does, the store cannot force the individual to make a purchase, because their policy was in conflict with other systems of rights.
If something is non-binding, and therefore invalid, it cannot be applied as... It has no validity.
If you have a driver's license, but it became invalid for some reason, you would not be permitted to continue driving, until such time as it became valid.
If the ownership of your house became questionable, you would be squatting.
The non-binding status of any agreement that becomes invalid, regardless of intention, is a problem in law, but it isn't a solved one.
If a license is invalid, you are not bound by it.
---
Caveat: I'm no longer a registered lawyer, as of two years ago. I may not be up-to-date on some things, and my main knowledge was in cross-border and Australian crime, specifically in the realm of IT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
Linkedin controls that response and can send back whatever it likes. 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"
LinkedIn have freely provided public data to any competitor but hiQ. If they were preventing any company from taking the data, say by putting it behind a user login with licensing, it would likely not be under consideration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The ruling in this case, has said it isn't No it didn't. This injunction has temporarily prevented LinkedIn from blocking HiQ, and only HiQ, while the case is argued. The court might rule that LinkedIn can't block anyone, or they might rule that HiQ is not entitled to scrape LinkedIn's data. > Which is an anti-trust issue. HiQ claimed it's anti-trust using inflammatory language in their PR statement. I disagree wit…
>> The ruling in this case, has said it isn't > No it didn't. True. I should have said, "the ruling in this case, has said it isn't clear if the agreement should be binding". > HiQ is claiming they should be able to take LinkedIn's copy because the data is "public" data. Nobody is taking anybody's data. LinkedIn are providing copies of the data to anybody who views the page. You can't take something from somebody els…
The injunction didn't say that either. The only thing it said is that LinkedIn can't block HiQ for the time being. This is common in lawsuits that both parties be prevented from action until a decision is actually made. The decision has not been made yet.
> Nobody is taking anybody's data.
I think I used a poor verb, or you misunderstood me. I meant that HiQ wants to copy LinkedIn's data for their own business. In some sense that can be viewed as theft, and that is the way LinkedIn sees it. Under that view, the verb "take" is appropriate, but it doesn't mean that the original copy is transferred or destroyed, it just means that HiQ is now in possession of a copy.
> There are many laws that may invalidate the EULA.
True, and I don't claim otherwise. "No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enf...
> Its purpose is irrelevant if it is not binding.
It's (a EULA's) main purpose is for communicating expectations, which I'm arguing is relevant even if it's not binding. If the EULA says "we can refuse service to you", and then service is refused, then it's not a surprise.
In a legal sense, this could (but is in no way guaranteed to) reduce liability. What I'm suggesting is that even if the contract is not binding or valid, if you break the rules and get banned from a site, the EULA may still provide a defense in court from the site being sued by the person to whom service was refused. The site can say "we posted the rules, this person broke the rules" and the person may not have any legal support in favor of getting the service after they broke the site's arbitrary rules.