3 ms·

I think the matter of whether they have an account or not is irrelevant. The violations listed are not directed to a LinkedIn account.

throwanem 4y ago
The cited EULA terms don't depend for applicability on creating an account, only on accessing LinkedIn. Whether or not that's enforceable and in what jurisdiction is a different question, and not one that's relevant here; unless OP is extremely foolish, we are not about to see that question tested again in court. In any case, LinkedIn accounts are clickwrapped in the EULA, and you can't build a scraper for stuff behind their auth wall - which, I believe as a direct response to LinkedIn vs. HiQ, is more or less everything they serve - without being able to get past it yourself. So the question of whether or not OP has agreed to the EULA, which LinkedIn complains Browserflow is marketed in part to violate, isn't remotely germane to a meaningful discussion of the issue.
bee_rider 4y ago
I disagree that it is irrelevant. A contract applies to the person who signed it, not the (inanimate) account. I mean if they have a contract with LinkedIn and they are violating it, they should stop lol. Since they make money from the tool apparently, and LinkedIn accounts are worthless, I’d probably stop violating the contract by terminating my LinkedIn account.
- throwanem 4y ago
  You don't think a team of Microsoft lawyers could find a way to sue you for marketing to LinkedIn users a tool expressly designed and marketed for the purpose of violating the EULA those users agreed to as a condition of creating their accounts? Thank you for exemplifying the value of the old advice against litigating pro se, I suppose. LinkedIn is being a lot more generous here than they really need to be. Getting an Ask HN to the front page about it wasn't terribly smart, but then this is why the only good advice for OP in this thread is "talk to a lawyer", which anyone who's already incorporated an LLC really should not need telling, but whatever.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    It is a general purpose tool. I mean autohotkey or any open source web browser could be hypothetically used/modified to scrape websites. What do you think about just removing that example?
    - throwanem 4y ago
      I think if I received the same C&D, I'd email it to my retained lawyer and ask for advice. I think I would expect to be advised I should comply fully and without undue delay. And I think that's exactly what I would then proceed to do. (I also think we're talking past one another, which tends to happen when I participate in discussions like this. I'm not a lawyer, but when you spend long enough sleeping with someone who is, it's amazing what you pick up - and how many silly notions originating in the assumption that 'law is really just a kind of code, right?' you find yourself perhaps ungently disabused of.)

throwanem 4y ago

The cited EULA terms don't depend for applicability on creating an account, only on accessing LinkedIn. Whether or not that's enforceable and in what jurisdiction is a different question, and not one that's relevant here; unless OP is extremely foolish, we are not about to see that question tested again in court. In any case, LinkedIn accounts are clickwrapped in the EULA, and you can't build a scraper for stuff behind their auth wall - which, I believe as a direct response to LinkedIn vs. HiQ, is more or less everything they serve - without being able to get past it yourself. So the question of whether or not OP has agreed to the EULA, which LinkedIn complains Browserflow is marketed in part to violate, isn't remotely germane to a meaningful discussion of the issue.

bee_rider 4y ago

I disagree that it is irrelevant. A contract applies to the person who signed it, not the (inanimate) account. I mean if they have a contract with LinkedIn and they are violating it, they should stop lol. Since they make money from the tool apparently, and LinkedIn accounts are worthless, I’d probably stop violating the contract by terminating my LinkedIn account.

throwanem 4y ago
You don't think a team of Microsoft lawyers could find a way to sue you for marketing to LinkedIn users a tool expressly designed and marketed for the purpose of violating the EULA those users agreed to as a condition of creating their accounts? Thank you for exemplifying the value of the old advice against litigating pro se, I suppose. LinkedIn is being a lot more generous here than they really need to be. Getting an Ask HN to the front page about it wasn't terribly smart, but then this is why the only good advice for OP in this thread is "talk to a lawyer", which anyone who's already incorporated an LLC really should not need telling, but whatever.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  It is a general purpose tool. I mean autohotkey or any open source web browser could be hypothetically used/modified to scrape websites. What do you think about just removing that example?
  - throwanem 4y ago
    I think if I received the same C&D, I'd email it to my retained lawyer and ask for advice. I think I would expect to be advised I should comply fully and without undue delay. And I think that's exactly what I would then proceed to do. (I also think we're talking past one another, which tends to happen when I participate in discussions like this. I'm not a lawyer, but when you spend long enough sleeping with someone who is, it's amazing what you pick up - and how many silly notions originating in the assumption that 'law is really just a kind of code, right?' you find yourself perhaps ungently disabused of.)