>So it's fine to mess with them, even illegally, just because you don't like them? The previous commenter never mentioned messing with them illegally and disag

>So it's fine to mess with them, even illegally, just because you don't like them? The previous commenter never mentioned messing with them illegally and disagrees with the analysis that this scraping is illegal. He said he hopes the courts do not rule this is illegal. Pretty disingenuous to start a reply like that... Many of your other points are not really giving the previous commenter any charity at all. For example, >For what definition of legitimately? Yours? Since it's their business, they can define what is a legitimate free use and what can be a paid one. He was literally trying to provide an example of where their scraping protections can be appear to be overzealous to casual users, not arguing whether those users are legitimate or not. What is the premise of your argument? To me, it seems you are simply trying to defend LinkedIn's business practices and legal pursuits, rather than discussing anything about the legality of scraping or the specifics of LinkedIn's anti-scraping implementations.