4 ms·
It's odd to me that your apparent revenue stream is from scraping difficult-to-scrape sites and you're broadcasting the exact tactics you use to bypass anti-scr
by datalopers 4y ago
It's odd to me that your apparent revenue stream is from scraping difficult-to-scrape sites and you're broadcasting the exact tactics you use to bypass anti-scraping systems.
You're making your own life difficult by giving Cloudflare/PerimeterX/etc the information necessary to improve their tooling.
You also seem to advertise many of the sites/datasets you're scraping, which opens you up to litigation. Especially if they're employing anti-scraping tooling and you're brazenly bypassing those. It doesn't matter that it's legal in most jurisdictions of the world, you'll still have to handle cease and desists or potential lawsuits, which is a major cost and distraction.
- punnerud 4y ago« You also seem to advertise many of the sites/datasets you're scraping, which opens you up to litigation.» Is that a done deal now after the “LinkedIn vs HiQ” case public information only hold copyright, but you can use the by product as it’s fit you for new business?
- datalopers 4y agoThe only clear outcome from the LinkedIn case, afaik, is that scraping publicly of accessible data is not a federal crime under CFAA [1]. There are still plenty of other civil ways that someone can sue you to stop scraping their site: breach of contract, trespass to chattels, trademark infringement, etc. And they can do so over and over again til you're broke. OP is based in Italy anyway so I have absolutely no clue what does and doesn't apply. I'd like to point out that, while HiQ Labs "won" the case, that company is basically dead. The CEO and CTO are both working for other companies now. So I think the bigger takeaway is: don't get yourself sued while you're a tiny little startup. [1] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hiq-labs-v-linkedin https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hiq-labs-v-linkedin