4 ms·

I guess for LinkedIn it could matter most, because their only livelihood is CV and employer companies Data, if you steal a poor man's bread they are gonna be up

by ijafri 9y ago

I guess for LinkedIn it could matter most, because their only livelihood is CV and employer companies Data, if you steal a poor man's bread they are gonna be upset. It was dead as a social network long ago if it ever was, now their only asset is the data, so I guess their right to protect their only asset is legit.

int_19h 9y ago
Their desire to protect it is legit, but it doesn't necessarily give them a right to do so. A long time ago, companies that were compiling phonebooks also thought that they could use e.g. copyright to prevent others from using that compiled data for commercial gain. They were wrong, because copyright doesn't protect "mere aggregation" of data, as courts have ruled. In this case, LinkedIn is not arguing on the basis of copyright, so it's a different legal argument. But the essence of the case is they same - they want to have a business model around aggregating other people's data and then providing access to that data, while limiting what people who access it can do with it. They don't have a right to this business model. If technical means of restricting access don't work, or if adopting them means that they drive most of their customers away, tough luck.
- ijafri 9y ago
  Yes it's a consensus user-generarated content or facts are not liable to copy rights, I am not sure about the legality however it should not take long to prove as such. I meant there is nothing that LinkedIn 'created' out of that users data. But it's little complex or little immoral to steal users data hosted on their infrastructure that costs them a lot.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    In US, it's an established legal fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... (Note, HN strips out the trailing dot from the URL above.)

by ijafri 9y ago

int_19h 9y ago

Their desire to protect it is legit, but it doesn't necessarily give them a right to do so. A long time ago, companies that were compiling phonebooks also thought that they could use e.g. copyright to prevent others from using that compiled data for commercial gain. They were wrong, because copyright doesn't protect "mere aggregation" of data, as courts have ruled. In this case, LinkedIn is not arguing on the basis of copyright, so it's a different legal argument. But the essence of the case is they same - they want to have a business model around aggregating other people's data and then providing access to that data, while limiting what people who access it can do with it. They don't have a right to this business model. If technical means of restricting access don't work, or if adopting them means that they drive most of their customers away, tough luck.

ijafri 9y ago
Yes it's a consensus user-generarated content or facts are not liable to copy rights, I am not sure about the legality however it should not take long to prove as such. I meant there is nothing that LinkedIn 'created' out of that users data. But it's little complex or little immoral to steal users data hosted on their infrastructure that costs them a lot.
- int_19h 9y ago
  In US, it's an established legal fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... (Note, HN strips out the trailing dot from the URL above.)