5 ms·

No. Public means everybody can do whatever they want with it, no exceptions (except, as with all things, by law). If you want to restrict the information, then

by redial 9y ago

No. Public means everybody can do whatever they want with it, no exceptions (except, as with all things, by law). If you want to restrict the information, then do it, but don't make it public and then when a competitor uses it claim it wasn't public 'for them'.

dahart 9y ago
Linked in never made it "public". Use of their site is and always has been licensed. https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement
- redial 9y ago
  The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In, like for example, the user agreement. If I want to copy and republish the user agreement I can, despite of what it might say. If the startup were republishing private information from Linked In I would agree with you.
  - dahart 9y ago
    > The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In, I beg to differ. Their EULA covers "accessing or using" their site in any way shape or form, and defines the term "visitor" for what you're calling "public". ... You agree that by clicking “Join Now”, “Join LinkedIn”, “Sign Up” or similar, registering, accessing or using our services (described below), you are agreeing to enter into a legally binding contract with LinkedIn (even if you are using our Services on behalf of a company). If you do not agree to this contract (“Contract” or “User Agreement”), do not click “Join Now” (or similar) and do not access or otherwise use any of our Services. ... When you register and join the LinkedIn Service, you become a Member. If you have chosen not to register for our Services, you may access certain features as a visitor.
    - redial 9y ago
      I do not agree with the EULA. I definitely do not agree with the EULA just by reading it. I most definitely do not agree with the EULA just by virtue of it existing and being linked to on some corner of their site. I do not agree to any terms just by visiting a webpage. I am not bound by anything other than the actual law and the contracts I have willingly entered into in writing or the digital equivalent. If the information is restricted, then restrict it. Do not make it publicly available then claim a webpage as the ruling contract of that information when it is used in a manner you do not agree with.
      - dahart 9y ago
        According to their view, you do agree to the contract by using their services, which includes visiting their web pages. If you don't agree, then don't use the services and don't visit their site. Or do, and argue it in court, but it's pointless to tell me you don't agree, the contract exists. They're not restricting access to the information. HiQ is scraping their site using bots, and LinkedIn doesn't like it. This isn't a debate about anything being publicly available or not, this is a business fight between two private companies.
        redial 9y ago
        Well then, since what you are saying is that a contract only one part agreed to is a valid contract, By reading (or not) this comment, you (“the reader") concede all the points of this discussion. The reader also agrees that the arguments presented by HackerNews user “redial” ("me", "we", "us") are correct even in case of conflict with his or her own previously stated positions, and that he/she will amend all of his/her previous comments to reflect this legally binding agreement.
        dahart 9y ago
        +1 for the lols. You seem to be arguing against me for the existence of EULAs. Maybe you're not aware that these have been around and their validity has been debated for decades? Lots of people are super bugged by them, just like you are. I think's it's fairly lame too. I didn't write the EULA, and I don't care if it's a valid contract. But no matter what you say to me, no matter how much sarcasm you use, the fact is that LinkedIn's EULA says that by visiting their site, you are agreeing to their contract. The real point I was making is that LinkedIn is establishing that they are not offering a public service. It doesn't matter whether you can be bound by their contract, the EULA is more about covering their own asses when they do things like refuse service to HiQ. The wrote the rules so that it's clear what things you can do to get banned. Regardless, they have the right to ban IPs or specific bots or whoever they want, because even though they let anyone access the site, that doesn't mean they have to let everyone access the site always. Like it or not, them's the facts.
- shakna 9y ago
  For a public license to be valid, you need to be able to view the terms, to agree to them. But the EULA says that simply by accessing the site, you agree to its terms. To view the EULA, you must view the site. That's just one of many problems wrong with assuming the EULA is binding. The ruling in this case, has said it isn't, instead because some people can index and scrape (search engines), but others (startups for example) can't. Which is an anti-trust issue.
  - dahart 9y ago
    > The ruling in this case, has said it isn't No it didn't. This injunction has temporarily prevented LinkedIn from blocking HiQ, and only HiQ, while the case is argued. The court might rule that LinkedIn can't block anyone, or they might rule that HiQ is not entitled to scrape LinkedIn's data. > Which is an anti-trust issue. HiQ claimed it's anti-trust using inflammatory language in their PR statement. I disagree with that assessment. LinkedIn is not preventing HiQ from collecting their own copy of the data, in any way, shape or form. HiQ is claiming they should be able to take LinkedIn's copy because the data is "public" data. Even if that's true, HiQ always has the option to get the data from the same source that LinkedIn did. > To view the EULA, you must view the site. That's just one of the many problems wrong with assuming the EULA is binding. Absolutely right, EULAs have all kinds of issues. In practice, the issue of having to access the site to view the license isn't a problem. You can choose after reading the EULA to not agree, and you can choose to not access any other data on LinkedIn. But there is no reason to assume the EULA is not binding because there are no other legal documents that cover your interaction with LinkedIn, aside from any state and federal laws that might override parts of the EULA. This is mostly irrelevant to the point I was making though, it doesn't matter if the EULA is binding. It's purpose there is to establish that LinkedIn is not providing a public service. It's communicating that there is no expectation of responsibility on the part of LinkedIn, and that doesn't really depend on whether you are specifically bound by the EULA. It's just like a sign in a store window that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason." You can could say that the sign is not a binding contract, and go into the store naked and yelling and start breaking stuff. When they kick you out, nobody will come to the defense of your right to walk into a store that everyone else is allowed to walk into.
- mariushn 9y ago
  Dahart, would you please add your email in profile? Would like to followup on your older health-related comments. Thanks!

by redial 9y ago

dahart 9y ago

Linked in never made it "public". Use of their site is and always has been licensed. https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement

redial 9y ago
The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In, like for example, the user agreement. If I want to copy and republish the user agreement I can, despite of what it might say. If the startup were republishing private information from Linked In I would agree with you.
- dahart 9y ago
  > The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In, I beg to differ. Their EULA covers "accessing or using" their site in any way shape or form, and defines the term "visitor" for what you're calling "public". ... You agree that by clicking “Join Now”, “Join LinkedIn”, “Sign Up” or similar, registering, accessing or using our services (described below), you are agreeing to enter into a legally binding contract with LinkedIn (even if you are using our Services on behalf of a company). If you do not agree to this contract (“Contract” or “User Agreement”), do not click “Join Now” (or similar) and do not access or otherwise use any of our Services. ... When you register and join the LinkedIn Service, you become a Member. If you have chosen not to register for our Services, you may access certain features as a visitor.
  - redial 9y ago
    I do not agree with the EULA. I definitely do not agree with the EULA just by reading it. I most definitely do not agree with the EULA just by virtue of it existing and being linked to on some corner of their site. I do not agree to any terms just by visiting a webpage. I am not bound by anything other than the actual law and the contracts I have willingly entered into in writing or the digital equivalent. If the information is restricted, then restrict it. Do not make it publicly available then claim a webpage as the ruling contract of that information when it is used in a manner you do not agree with.
    - dahart 9y ago
      According to their view, you do agree to the contract by using their services, which includes visiting their web pages. If you don't agree, then don't use the services and don't visit their site. Or do, and argue it in court, but it's pointless to tell me you don't agree, the contract exists. They're not restricting access to the information. HiQ is scraping their site using bots, and LinkedIn doesn't like it. This isn't a debate about anything being publicly available or not, this is a business fight between two private companies.
      - redial 9y ago
        Well then, since what you are saying is that a contract only one part agreed to is a valid contract, By reading (or not) this comment, you (“the reader") concede all the points of this discussion. The reader also agrees that the arguments presented by HackerNews user “redial” ("me", "we", "us") are correct even in case of conflict with his or her own previously stated positions, and that he/she will amend all of his/her previous comments to reflect this legally binding agreement.
        dahart 9y ago
        +1 for the lols. You seem to be arguing against me for the existence of EULAs. Maybe you're not aware that these have been around and their validity has been debated for decades? Lots of people are super bugged by them, just like you are. I think's it's fairly lame too. I didn't write the EULA, and I don't care if it's a valid contract. But no matter what you say to me, no matter how much sarcasm you use, the fact is that LinkedIn's EULA says that by visiting their site, you are agreeing to their contract. The real point I was making is that LinkedIn is establishing that they are not offering a public service. It doesn't matter whether you can be bound by their contract, the EULA is more about covering their own asses when they do things like refuse service to HiQ. The wrote the rules so that it's clear what things you can do to get banned. Regardless, they have the right to ban IPs or specific bots or whoever they want, because even though they let anyone access the site, that doesn't mean they have to let everyone access the site always. Like it or not, them's the facts.
shakna 9y ago
For a public license to be valid, you need to be able to view the terms, to agree to them. But the EULA says that simply by accessing the site, you agree to its terms. To view the EULA, you must view the site. That's just one of many problems wrong with assuming the EULA is binding. The ruling in this case, has said it isn't, instead because some people can index and scrape (search engines), but others (startups for example) can't. Which is an anti-trust issue.
- dahart 9y ago
  > The ruling in this case, has said it isn't No it didn't. This injunction has temporarily prevented LinkedIn from blocking HiQ, and only HiQ, while the case is argued. The court might rule that LinkedIn can't block anyone, or they might rule that HiQ is not entitled to scrape LinkedIn's data. > Which is an anti-trust issue. HiQ claimed it's anti-trust using inflammatory language in their PR statement. I disagree with that assessment. LinkedIn is not preventing HiQ from collecting their own copy of the data, in any way, shape or form. HiQ is claiming they should be able to take LinkedIn's copy because the data is "public" data. Even if that's true, HiQ always has the option to get the data from the same source that LinkedIn did. > To view the EULA, you must view the site. That's just one of the many problems wrong with assuming the EULA is binding. Absolutely right, EULAs have all kinds of issues. In practice, the issue of having to access the site to view the license isn't a problem. You can choose after reading the EULA to not agree, and you can choose to not access any other data on LinkedIn. But there is no reason to assume the EULA is not binding because there are no other legal documents that cover your interaction with LinkedIn, aside from any state and federal laws that might override parts of the EULA. This is mostly irrelevant to the point I was making though, it doesn't matter if the EULA is binding. It's purpose there is to establish that LinkedIn is not providing a public service. It's communicating that there is no expectation of responsibility on the part of LinkedIn, and that doesn't really depend on whether you are specifically bound by the EULA. It's just like a sign in a store window that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason." You can could say that the sign is not a binding contract, and go into the store naked and yelling and start breaking stuff. When they kick you out, nobody will come to the defense of your right to walk into a store that everyone else is allowed to walk into.
mariushn 9y ago
Dahart, would you please add your email in profile? Would like to followup on your older health-related comments. Thanks!