3 ms·

This is actually bad, would not it be better if sites would be allowed to block crawlers? I don't see what is the legal basis for forbidding to ban scrapers. Is

This is actually bad, would not it be better if sites would be allowed to block crawlers? I don't see what is the legal basis for forbidding to ban scrapers. Is there a law that a site must serve pages for anyone?

CamperBob2 7y ago
Parent was downvoted but I think they have a point. This sounds overbroad, to an extent that I'd worry will get the whole ruling tossed out by SCOTUS. On the other hand, if the ruling stands, it sounds like it will finally be possible to do useful things with Craigslist.
anortef 7y ago
Why? if your data is publicly accessible what is the difference between using scripts and someone hiring a ton of people on a third world country to copy&paste your content?
cooljacob204 7y ago
Because they are exposing their website to the general public. If you don't want the public to have access and be able to scrap it don't make it public facing.
3xblah 7y ago
There is no legal basis for "forbidding to ban scrapers". The question is whether there is any legal basis for banning scrapers, i.e., for blocking hiQ. In other words, if hiQ keeps scraping, are they violating anyone's rights and/or breaking the law by doing that? As long as that remains a legitimate, open question, then hiQ can argue they should be allowed to keep scraping without incurring civil or criminal liability. That is the purpose of the injunction. There could be no legal basis for blocking hiQ. Until that question is resolved, hiQ can keep on scraping.
xxxpupugo 7y ago
You can redefine what is 'public', or require login to see those information anyway. If anything, the ruling could just push websites to hide information even deeper.
MiroF 7y ago
Yes - for instance if your e-commerce site banned people from visiting based on whether their zip code made it more likely they were of a certain racial group, you would be running afoul of the law.

CamperBob2 7y ago

Parent was downvoted but I think they have a point. This sounds overbroad, to an extent that I'd worry will get the whole ruling tossed out by SCOTUS. On the other hand, if the ruling stands, it sounds like it will finally be possible to do useful things with Craigslist.

anortef 7y ago

Why? if your data is publicly accessible what is the difference between using scripts and someone hiring a ton of people on a third world country to copy&paste your content?

cooljacob204 7y ago

Because they are exposing their website to the general public. If you don't want the public to have access and be able to scrap it don't make it public facing.

3xblah 7y ago

There is no legal basis for "forbidding to ban scrapers". The question is whether there is any legal basis for banning scrapers, i.e., for blocking hiQ. In other words, if hiQ keeps scraping, are they violating anyone's rights and/or breaking the law by doing that? As long as that remains a legitimate, open question, then hiQ can argue they should be allowed to keep scraping without incurring civil or criminal liability. That is the purpose of the injunction. There could be no legal basis for blocking hiQ. Until that question is resolved, hiQ can keep on scraping.

xxxpupugo 7y ago

You can redefine what is 'public', or require login to see those information anyway. If anything, the ruling could just push websites to hide information even deeper.

MiroF 7y ago

Yes - for instance if your e-commerce site banned people from visiting based on whether their zip code made it more likely they were of a certain racial group, you would be running afoul of the law.