Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 168 posts

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#51

Post by perl4ever »

pixelmonkey wrote: post #15

The summary here is that LinkedIn tried to argue that it could prevent scraping of public LinkedIn profile data under their ToS, but the courts have ruled that if data is public and provided by users, it can be scraped/crawled, that is, it isn’t LinkedIn property. This is generally a positive outcome for people/companies turning web text and HTML into structured data, e.g. tools like Puppeteer and Scrapy can be used…

"it can be scraped/crawled, that is, it isn’t LinkedIn property"

I thought it was pretty established that putting something on a website didn't eliminate your copyright. Has that changed now?

To me, it seems like common sense would be that if you make a public website, you are implicitly permitting some copies, but surely it's not all or nothing?

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#52

Post by jakeogh »

perl4ever wrote: post #45
jakeogh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is to let corporations effectively make law.

Corporations do effectively make law, at least in the US. Politicians have neither the time nor the expertise. There have been some widely read articles about how sometimes that law is not even freely available to the public.

Sounds like we agree that's a bad thing. To your first sentence, no, they propose laws. They dont get to revise their ToS and have it be a violation of the law when you ignore it. That would be like the EPA making a rule, because they were granted that power by congress.

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#54

Post by gkoberger »

ptero wrote: post #21
psv1 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another side of this is that the entity doing the scraping is more often than not another company. Which means that if your proposal is implemented, a user can voluntarily give their personal data to Google/Reddit/Facebook etc but that company then has to make the user's personal data available to another company.

It's not quite like that. The first company cannot prevent scraping by individuals or another company of information that it already shows to everyone. Which, to me, is a good thing. My 2c.

Eh. I want my picture and name uploaded to LinkedIn, since it's a professional network and people use it to find me for good reasons. It may seem dumb, however not having a LinkedIn with a good picture can genuinely hurt your career.

I do NOT want my picture run through facial recognition software, or my name/email sold to marketers who will add it to a drip campaign.

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#55

Post by nitrogen »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #24
tdhoot wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only for personal and non-commercial use, which is probably not what startups need.

Why would they have to make it available to startups in an easily accessible manner?

IMDB was originally crowdsourced, wasn't it?

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#56

Post by GarrisonPrime »

perl4ever wrote: post #51
pixelmonkey wrote: post #15

The summary here is that LinkedIn tried to argue that it could prevent scraping of public LinkedIn profile data under their ToS, but the courts have ruled that if data is public and provided by users, it can be scraped/crawled, that is, it isn’t LinkedIn property. This is generally a positive outcome for people/companies turning web text and HTML into structured data, e.g. tools like Puppeteer and Scrapy can be used…

"it can be scraped/crawled, that is, it isn’t LinkedIn property" I thought it was pretty established that putting something on a website didn't eliminate your copyright. Has that changed now? To me, it seems like common sense would be that if you make a public website, you are implicitly permitting some copies, but surely it's not all or nothing?

Perhaps it depends on intent. Clearly, the creators of the content, and those who posted the content, did so for the sole intention of making it public and usable outside the LinkedIn system. Their posting of it on LinkedIn is incidental; what site is used or who owns it is largely irrelevant to them, whereas such things clearly do matter to any company or person creating and posting their own unique content to their own site.

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#57

Post by giancarlostoro »

lr4444lr wrote: post #46

What cracks me up about this is how these massive companies go to such lengths to call themselves mere platforms in order to avoid liability for content, and then when someone actually takes the content in this case they cry, "Foul! That's ours !" Can't have it both ways.

What's scarier is when they editorialize their platforms (also read censorship), therefore becoming content producers themselves. Today it's whoever you disagree with being censored, tomorrow it's your own voice.

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#58

Post by dragonwriter »

perl4ever wrote: post #51
pixelmonkey wrote: post #15

The summary here is that LinkedIn tried to argue that it could prevent scraping of public LinkedIn profile data under their ToS, but the courts have ruled that if data is public and provided by users, it can be scraped/crawled, that is, it isn’t LinkedIn property. This is generally a positive outcome for people/companies turning web text and HTML into structured data, e.g. tools like Puppeteer and Scrapy can be used…

"it can be scraped/crawled, that is, it isn’t LinkedIn property" I thought it was pretty established that putting something on a website didn't eliminate your copyright. Has that changed now? To me, it seems like common sense would be that if you make a public website, you are implicitly permitting some copies, but surely it's not all or nothing?

> I thought it was pretty established that putting something on a website didn't eliminate your copyright. Has that changed now?

No, if anything, that supports the decision.

To the extent that the material is copyrightable, it belongs to the users, who have chosen to make it public; copying incidental and necessary to that access is allowed under an implied license doctrine. Microsoft's efforts to restrict access had nothing to do with copyright, but ToS.

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#59

Post by eagsalazar2 »

pixelmonkey wrote: post #15

The summary here is that LinkedIn tried to argue that it could prevent scraping of public LinkedIn profile data under their ToS, but the courts have ruled that if data is public and provided by users, it can be scraped/crawled, that is, it isn’t LinkedIn property. This is generally a positive outcome for people/companies turning web text and HTML into structured data, e.g. tools like Puppeteer and Scrapy can be used…

Not sure "isn't LinkedIn property" is accurate here. They still retain ownership and control of redistribution just like any other IP. This is more of a philosophical question about whether "viewing" itself is a violation of their ownership rights and really about the definitions of "viewing" and "public" in the context of the internet.

Seems like they've simply determined that viewing any freely accessible URL is "public" and that "viewing" does include scraping. This seems like a very reasonable determination as it maps pretty neatly to how we think about viewing public content IRL where I am free to drive down the road (for profit or pleasure) and record publicly viewable signage and activities and use that data any way I see fit.

Re: LinkedIn loses appeal over access to user profiles

#60

Post by freeone3000 »

perl4ever wrote: post #51
pixelmonkey wrote: post #15

The summary here is that LinkedIn tried to argue that it could prevent scraping of public LinkedIn profile data under their ToS, but the courts have ruled that if data is public and provided by users, it can be scraped/crawled, that is, it isn’t LinkedIn property. This is generally a positive outcome for people/companies turning web text and HTML into structured data, e.g. tools like Puppeteer and Scrapy can be used…

"it can be scraped/crawled, that is, it isn’t LinkedIn property" I thought it was pretty established that putting something on a website didn't eliminate your copyright. Has that changed now? To me, it seems like common sense would be that if you make a public website, you are implicitly permitting some copies, but surely it's not all or nothing?

Facts and tables are not copyrightable. The phone numbers in a phone book are not copyrightable, merely their presentation order[0]. If you were to copy, say, the linkedin website, or the linkedin branding, or the name linkedin, or any of their ads, those would be eligible, but the simple collection of names, emails, and phone numbers is ineligible for copyright.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....

Post reply on HN