3 ms·

Violating TOS, at least to scrape and use later, is legal.[0] I'm not sure how the ruling interacts with LLMs, but I'm sure OpenAI's lawyers would bring it up.

Violating TOS, at least to scrape and use later, is legal.[0] I'm not sure how the ruling interacts with LLMs, but I'm sure OpenAI's lawyers would bring it up. [0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/04/18/scraping-data-from-linkedin-profiles-is-legal-appeals-court-rules/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/04/18/scrapin...

satvikpendem 3y ago
FYI LinkedIn actually won that case after appealing once more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
- colejohnson66 3y ago
  Ah. I was not aware there was an update to that case. TIL.
- crazypyro 3y ago
  Where do you see that they won the case? Can you provide a source because the wikipedia article directly contradicts what you are saying...? I see they went to the Supreme Court who kicked it back to the Ninth who then re-affirmed their position that HiQ Labs was not in violation of the CFAA.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    From [0] and [1], it seems it was a mixed ruling. I am actually not sure whether it's now legal to scrape, since the Court ruled against hiQ due to a breach of terms of service, but previously the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed its ruling against LinkedIn. [0] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-finds-hiq-breached-linkedin-s-terms-prohibiting-scraping-mixed-ruling-declines https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-finds-hiq-breache... [1] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hiq-and-linkedin-reach-proposed-settlement-landmark-scraping-case https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hiq-and-linkedin-reach-...
    - crazypyro 3y ago
      > The hiQ decisions give a green light, at least in some circumstances, to scraping publicly available websites without fear of liability under the CFAA. So at a federal level, it seems relatively clear. The only uncertainty is on the state level.

satvikpendem 3y ago

FYI LinkedIn actually won that case after appealing once more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn

colejohnson66 3y ago
Ah. I was not aware there was an update to that case. TIL.
crazypyro 3y ago
Where do you see that they won the case? Can you provide a source because the wikipedia article directly contradicts what you are saying...? I see they went to the Supreme Court who kicked it back to the Ninth who then re-affirmed their position that HiQ Labs was not in violation of the CFAA.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  From [0] and [1], it seems it was a mixed ruling. I am actually not sure whether it's now legal to scrape, since the Court ruled against hiQ due to a breach of terms of service, but previously the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed its ruling against LinkedIn. [0] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-finds-hiq-breached-linkedin-s-terms-prohibiting-scraping-mixed-ruling-declines https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-finds-hiq-breache... [1] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hiq-and-linkedin-reach-proposed-settlement-landmark-scraping-case https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hiq-and-linkedin-reach-...
  - crazypyro 3y ago
    > The hiQ decisions give a green light, at least in some circumstances, to scraping publicly available websites without fear of liability under the CFAA. So at a federal level, it seems relatively clear. The only uncertainty is on the state level.