4 ms·

Not sure "isn't LinkedIn property" is accurate here. They still retain ownership and control of redistribution just like any other IP. This is more of a philo

Not sure "isn't LinkedIn property" is accurate here. They still retain ownership and control of redistribution just like any other IP. This is more of a philosophical question about whether "viewing" itself is a violation of their ownership rights and really about the definitions of "viewing" and "public" in the context of the internet. Seems like they've simply determined that viewing any freely accessible URL is "public" and that "viewing" does include scraping. This seems like a very reasonable determination as it maps pretty neatly to how we think about viewing public content IRL where I am free to drive down the road (for profit or pleasure) and record publicly viewable signage and activities and use that data any way I see fit.

jjeaff 7y ago
If I enter my employment record and my profile pic, birthdate, etc, I don't think that is the ip of linkedin. Maybe the way they display it or if they are transforming it in some way it could be considered ip. But if someone scrapes all that user entered data and then displays it somewhere else in a different format, I can't imagine LinkedIn being able to claim their ip has been infringed.
- close04 7y ago
  I think this all of this should be the user's choice since every company should put the user at the center of these decisions. If I want my data to be shared in any way I can simply tick a box and allow that. If I don't then keep it just for me and the people I chose to share it on that platform. It should also be made clear to the users if that data is being used as payment for the services provided by mentioning explicitly and in a detailed way where that data goes.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    I think (hope?) that's what this decision did. LinkedIn must allow scraping publicly available data, but not private data that a third party wouldn't have access to normally.
nordsieck 7y ago
> Not sure "isn't LinkedIn property" is accurate here. It is very accurate. Users retain the copyright on their works in so far as their works are able to be copyrighted. Anything that is a "mere fact", and can't be copyrighted, is also not LinkedIn's property. From LinkedIn's terms of service[1]: > you are only granting LinkedIn and our affiliates the following non-exclusive license: > A worldwide, transferable and sublicensable right to use, copy, modify, distribute, publish, and process, information and content that you provide through our Services and the services of others, without any further consent, notice and/or compensation to you or others. ___ 1. https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement#rights https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement#rights
rebuilder 7y ago
Maybe it's more accurate to say "any publicly linked URL"? IIRC, charges have been successfully brought against people for e.g. iterating through user identifiers in URLs to gain access to other users' data. (Do correct me if I'm wrong on that count!)
- komali2 7y ago
  Some kid was charged for that but in my opinion it was stupid. URL to me means part of the UX. If you search on Google using a query parameter directly instead of entering the query in their search box, should that count as wrongful use?
  - rebuilder 7y ago
    Stupid or not, that's a matter for the lawmakers. What I'm saying is that, as far as I know, a ruling that any publicly accessible URL is fair game would contradict previous rulings. Now, this is based on my very patchy memory of sensationalist reporting of legal matters in a jurisdiction I don't reside in, so there's probably some wiggle room there ;)
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    If I guess your password in the password form input, should that count as wrongful use? If I rifle through your personal papers because your door was open, should that count as wrongful use?
  - jayalpha 7y ago
    No, it should not. But what if you try some SQL injection to do something nasty? The modern law system distinguishes between result and intent.
- fragmede 7y ago
  Andrew Auernheimer, more commonly known as weev, got all of AT&T's ipad users' email addresses at that time, by enumerating all the possible sim-card IDs, against a public facing ATT website. He was charged and convicted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and sentenced to 41 months in federal prison that. His sentence was vacated after 13 months due to a technicality of the venue; that judge did not address the substantive question on the legality of the site access. Weev may be an odious person, but everyone has rights in a court of law, even white supremacists.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

jjeaff 7y ago

If I enter my employment record and my profile pic, birthdate, etc, I don't think that is the ip of linkedin. Maybe the way they display it or if they are transforming it in some way it could be considered ip. But if someone scrapes all that user entered data and then displays it somewhere else in a different format, I can't imagine LinkedIn being able to claim their ip has been infringed.

close04 7y ago
I think this all of this should be the user's choice since every company should put the user at the center of these decisions. If I want my data to be shared in any way I can simply tick a box and allow that. If I don't then keep it just for me and the people I chose to share it on that platform. It should also be made clear to the users if that data is being used as payment for the services provided by mentioning explicitly and in a detailed way where that data goes.
- leereeves 7y ago
  I think (hope?) that's what this decision did. LinkedIn must allow scraping publicly available data, but not private data that a third party wouldn't have access to normally.

nordsieck 7y ago

> Not sure "isn't LinkedIn property" is accurate here. It is very accurate. Users retain the copyright on their works in so far as their works are able to be copyrighted. Anything that is a "mere fact", and can't be copyrighted, is also not LinkedIn's property. From LinkedIn's terms of service[1]: > you are only granting LinkedIn and our affiliates the following non-exclusive license: > A worldwide, transferable and sublicensable right to use, copy, modify, distribute, publish, and process, information and content that you provide through our Services and the services of others, without any further consent, notice and/or compensation to you or others. ___ 1. https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement#rights https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement#rights

rebuilder 7y ago

Maybe it's more accurate to say "any publicly linked URL"? IIRC, charges have been successfully brought against people for e.g. iterating through user identifiers in URLs to gain access to other users' data. (Do correct me if I'm wrong on that count!)

komali2 7y ago
Some kid was charged for that but in my opinion it was stupid. URL to me means part of the UX. If you search on Google using a query parameter directly instead of entering the query in their search box, should that count as wrongful use?
- rebuilder 7y ago
  Stupid or not, that's a matter for the lawmakers. What I'm saying is that, as far as I know, a ruling that any publicly accessible URL is fair game would contradict previous rulings. Now, this is based on my very patchy memory of sensationalist reporting of legal matters in a jurisdiction I don't reside in, so there's probably some wiggle room there ;)
- lonelappde 7y ago
  If I guess your password in the password form input, should that count as wrongful use? If I rifle through your personal papers because your door was open, should that count as wrongful use?
- jayalpha 7y ago
  No, it should not. But what if you try some SQL injection to do something nasty? The modern law system distinguishes between result and intent.
fragmede 7y ago
Andrew Auernheimer, more commonly known as weev, got all of AT&T's ipad users' email addresses at that time, by enumerating all the possible sim-card IDs, against a public facing ATT website. He was charged and convicted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and sentenced to 41 months in federal prison that. His sentence was vacated after 13 months due to a technicality of the venue; that judge did not address the substantive question on the legality of the site access. Weev may be an odious person, but everyone has rights in a court of law, even white supremacists.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]