7 ms·

> A better analogy would be me taking a photo of the bike while walking past. Taking a photo of the bike is also a poor analogy. Scrapers don't take one photo,

> A better analogy would be me taking a photo of the bike while walking past. Taking a photo of the bike is also a poor analogy. Scrapers don't take one photo, they take photos of all the bikes. And scrapers don't keep the photos for themselves, they sell them for a profit. Also, the original bike isn't parked, it's placed in a gallery (probably with an admission fee? I don't know the business model of linkedin).

jalfresi 9y ago
So? How does this impact the bike owner in anyway?
- rootlocus 9y ago
  The owner makes money from the admission fee clients pay to see the bike. Taking photos and selling albums defeats that purpose.
  - mywittyname 9y ago
    But the owner is offering the images up for free to the public. hiQ is taking those publicly-available photos and annotating them with, "red bike", "pink bike", "broken bike", "professional bike", etc. It's clearly a value-add and not theft.
    - quickben 9y ago
      It depends. You have to keep in mind that an entire generation was brainwashed that personal data isn't that "personal", so Google, FB and the rest can have amazing profits. Most of these discussions are stained by general unawareness of the privacy and copyright law. Ofc because the value of the data supplier (usually a single person, etc) these never reaches the courts, which just reinforces the ongoing misconceptions. If you really want to test this, try copying the content from Google, Facebook hiQ or whoever that's big enough to go after you. But people somehow believe that it's okay for businesses to do what regular persons aren't allowed to.
aphexbr 9y ago
The number of photos is irrelevant to the analogy, though, as is what people do with the photos afterwards. If the bikes are visible from the public street, people can take as many pictures of every bike they want, and then make money from them if they want. It doesn't affect the owners' usage of the bike (unlike the original analogy, where the owner loses access, which was what I was trying to correct) Physical analogies for this kind of thing are always flawed, it's just dishonest/misleading to pretend that copying data is ever analogous to taking a physical object (the owner of the original is never deprived of the original when data is copied). "I don't know the business model of linkedin" Most of it is selling premium features to recruiters and other businesses. I'm not sure if Hi-Q's service interferes with that or not, but LinkedIn should not be trying to have their cake and eat it by leaving things in public then complaining when the public accesses it in a way they don't like.
- rootlocus 9y ago
  > The number of photos is irrelevant to the analogy Actually, the size of the data and the number of requests is very relevant. More data means more information, means more money. It also means more bandwidth and processing power required to process requests. You're not taking a photo of the bike, you're asking the bike to give you a photo of it. > it's just dishonest/misleading to pretend that copying data is ever analogous to taking a physical object (the owner of the original is never deprived of the original when data is copied). Leaving LinkedIn aside, possession of the original data is never the issue with digital piracy. It's a straw man. The hurt occurs when people benefit from the work the original author put into creating that data without proper compensation. Just because you can clone my gizmo (which I spent years working on) without taking the original one doesn't mean you're not hurting me. That gizmo could give me an advantage you wouldn't otherwise have. I place hours of working into something that doesn't put food on the table because you can clone my work, but I can't clone my food. There's a reason an empty CD costs 50c but a music album costs $10. You're not paying for the physical medium. You're paying for the IP. And yes, digital distributions are cheaper because of this, but that doesn't make them free. > Most of it is selling premium features to recruiters and other businesses. I'd say it's pretty obviously interfering with their business model. > LinkedIn should not be trying to have their cake and eat it by leaving things in public then complaining when the public accesses it in a way they don't like. LinkedIn could ban IPs that make unreasonable number of requests in a short amount of time.

jalfresi 9y ago

So? How does this impact the bike owner in anyway?

rootlocus 9y ago
The owner makes money from the admission fee clients pay to see the bike. Taking photos and selling albums defeats that purpose.
- mywittyname 9y ago
  But the owner is offering the images up for free to the public. hiQ is taking those publicly-available photos and annotating them with, "red bike", "pink bike", "broken bike", "professional bike", etc. It's clearly a value-add and not theft.
  - quickben 9y ago
    It depends. You have to keep in mind that an entire generation was brainwashed that personal data isn't that "personal", so Google, FB and the rest can have amazing profits. Most of these discussions are stained by general unawareness of the privacy and copyright law. Ofc because the value of the data supplier (usually a single person, etc) these never reaches the courts, which just reinforces the ongoing misconceptions. If you really want to test this, try copying the content from Google, Facebook hiQ or whoever that's big enough to go after you. But people somehow believe that it's okay for businesses to do what regular persons aren't allowed to.

aphexbr 9y ago

The number of photos is irrelevant to the analogy, though, as is what people do with the photos afterwards. If the bikes are visible from the public street, people can take as many pictures of every bike they want, and then make money from them if they want. It doesn't affect the owners' usage of the bike (unlike the original analogy, where the owner loses access, which was what I was trying to correct) Physical analogies for this kind of thing are always flawed, it's just dishonest/misleading to pretend that copying data is ever analogous to taking a physical object (the owner of the original is never deprived of the original when data is copied). "I don't know the business model of linkedin" Most of it is selling premium features to recruiters and other businesses. I'm not sure if Hi-Q's service interferes with that or not, but LinkedIn should not be trying to have their cake and eat it by leaving things in public then complaining when the public accesses it in a way they don't like.

rootlocus 9y ago
> The number of photos is irrelevant to the analogy Actually, the size of the data and the number of requests is very relevant. More data means more information, means more money. It also means more bandwidth and processing power required to process requests. You're not taking a photo of the bike, you're asking the bike to give you a photo of it. > it's just dishonest/misleading to pretend that copying data is ever analogous to taking a physical object (the owner of the original is never deprived of the original when data is copied). Leaving LinkedIn aside, possession of the original data is never the issue with digital piracy. It's a straw man. The hurt occurs when people benefit from the work the original author put into creating that data without proper compensation. Just because you can clone my gizmo (which I spent years working on) without taking the original one doesn't mean you're not hurting me. That gizmo could give me an advantage you wouldn't otherwise have. I place hours of working into something that doesn't put food on the table because you can clone my work, but I can't clone my food. There's a reason an empty CD costs 50c but a music album costs $10. You're not paying for the physical medium. You're paying for the IP. And yes, digital distributions are cheaper because of this, but that doesn't make them free. > Most of it is selling premium features to recruiters and other businesses. I'd say it's pretty obviously interfering with their business model. > LinkedIn should not be trying to have their cake and eat it by leaving things in public then complaining when the public accesses it in a way they don't like. LinkedIn could ban IPs that make unreasonable number of requests in a short amount of time.