9th Circuit holds that scraping a public website does not violate the CFAA [pdf]

There's an infinite number of ways to describe a job history, without any single standard, so I don't think it makes any sense to say that a profile or resume is not copyrightable.

Public facing internet sites, in my opinion, should be treated in same way as public space - anyone should be free to read, and write down in their notepad whatever is there, in the same way as anyone else.

Scraping public facing website in my opinion is huge waste of resources. It would be cheaper(in total) to build an API that can serve the data from it, than to build a good scraper.

Imagine you have a piece of information that your neighbors in town come to you for every once in a while. They come over every now and again, ask you for it, maybe even bring you cookies for the trouble, and you provide it.

Then there's Ted.

Ted is insatiable. He hounds you at every minute of your day, constantly asking you the same question over and over. You've done everything you can. You tried to reason with Ted. You tried to contact whoever it is that brought Ted to your neighborhood. You even got so desperate, you moved a few houses down to escape the incessant hounding. That only worked for a little while though, and Ted found you again.

So you tried to stop answering the door; no use, he pokes his head in every time you're in the garage. You demanded people identify themselves first. Oh well, it's changed little. Now he just names himself gibberish names before hounding you for the same things over and over again.

This would not by any stretch of the imagination be acceptable behavior between two people. The main factor in determination for a court injunction would likely be physical trespass, or public nuisance; but no digital equivalent exists currently other than the CFAA, in the sense that in as much as one can prove that the access to the system is inconsistent with the intent or legal terms of providing a service, one may seek relief.

The problem is, LinkedIn has failed to make a convincing argument in the eyes of the appellate court that hiQ's Ted is violating the CFAA while LinkedIn has proactively engaged in activity disrupting hiQ's ability to do business; business which was consistent with the service granted to unknown members of the public at large.

In the Court's eyes, from the sounds of it, it appears LinkedIn is doing the greater harm.

What it looks like to me is this is setting up a common law framework that is going to cause website/service providers to have to choose from the get-go what their relationship to the Net is.

Are you just a transitor providing a service over the Net to a limited, select clientele bound by very specific terms of service? Then you may have a leg to stand on in fending off malignant Teds, but your exposure and onboarding will need to have concomitant friction to make the case to the Court that these Teds were never meant to be serviced in the first place.

Or, are you providing a public content portal, meant to make things accessible to everyone, with minimal terms? In which case, no legal Ted relief for you!

Just because it is your "syatem' and it isn't connected to your nervous system, does not mean it isn't capable of being caused harm to, or inflicting harm on someone else with careless muckery.

The one thing that disturbs me most is how the Court has disregarded the chilling effect that interpreting a duty to maintaining visibility may incur. A First Amendment challenge may end up being the inevitable result of this legal proceeding.