[rickpmg]

I have no love for linkedin, but not sure of your position.

They collected the data, host it, etc, and incur costs for doing so. Just because they allow the public to access it, doesn't mean the public should have a right to re-use it.

People argue that the data is public. I say that's not the issue. While the data itself might be available elsewhere, it is raiding the _collection_ of it that is being argued, not that 'public' data is 'private'.

The _value_ that LinkedIn adds is that they've built the structure to collect and maintain the data. They are _not_ asking the court to prohibit anyone from collecting the same data on their own, at their own expense. If someone wants to start a rival LinkedIn, they are free to do so.

[rsj_hn]

The implication is that the company that serves public data could impose conditions on the use of that data, for example they could:

  1. ban the use of ad blockers when accessing the data
  2. ban users making an offline copy to view later
  3. ban users from disabling auto play or other features
  4. otherwise control what you do with data once you get it, which is *huge*. 
     E.g. what if they want a 1% share of any revenue you get by using the data, etc.

I think this really restricts freedom and has some scary implications for the future of the web.

Of course now, they have a technological option to try to force each of the above, but users also have a technological option to try to outsmart them. But I wouldn't want to give them a legal right to force the above.

[Buge]

Companies already do all those through technical means. In fact they have the full force of the law behind their efforts because they simply put some DRM on it and now it's illegal to try to circumvent.

I would LOVE it if the courts would remove the legal protections of DRM. It seems so strange that this court has gone so far in the viewer-rights direction, but hasn't bothered taking the baby steps to remove the legal protection of DRM.

Hmm, now I'm hoping LinkedIn implements some DRM so this fight can get truly interesting and maybe make some positive difference.

[rsj_hn]

I'm not sure whether data like this can be copyrighted or is considered a creative work. The creative work would be things like the LinkedIn logo or graphics, and these fall under IP protections that limit what you can do with them even if they are freely available.

[redial]

> Just because they allow the public to access it, doesn't mean the public should have a right to re-use it.

That is exactly what public means. Do not make it public if you don't want 'the public' to use it.

[EGreg]

Let me replace the word "re-use" with "re-publish". Does your analysis change at all?

[cvsh]

Yes, because "publish" implies breach of copyright.

If I post an essay on LinkedIn, and then someone posts it on their blog, copyright has been breached because that is my original work.

If I post the fact that I worked at Dunkin Donuts from 2007 to 2009 on LinkedIn, and then someone records it and feeds it to an employee quitting predictor algorithm, they've done nothing illegal. Me stating the fact that I was employed at a certain place for a certain amount of time is not me publishing an original work.

[redial]

No.

Public means everybody can do whatever they want with it, no exceptions (except, as with all things, by law). If you want to restrict the information, then do it, but don't make it public and then when a competitor uses it claim it wasn't public 'for them'.

[dahart]

Linked in never made it "public". Use of their site is and always has been licensed. https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement

[shakna]

For a public license to be valid, you need to be able to view the terms, to agree to them.

But the EULA says that simply by accessing the site, you agree to its terms.

To view the EULA, you must view the site.

That's just one of many problems wrong with assuming the EULA is binding.

The ruling in this case, has said it isn't, instead because some people can index and scrape (search engines), but others (startups for example) can't. Which is an anti-trust issue.

[dahart]

> The ruling in this case, has said it isn't

No it didn't. This injunction has temporarily prevented LinkedIn from blocking HiQ, and only HiQ, while the case is argued. The court might rule that LinkedIn can't block anyone, or they might rule that HiQ is not entitled to scrape LinkedIn's data.

> Which is an anti-trust issue.

HiQ claimed it's anti-trust using inflammatory language in their PR statement. I disagree with that assessment. LinkedIn is not preventing HiQ from collecting their own copy of the data, in any way, shape or form. HiQ is claiming they should be able to take LinkedIn's copy because the data is "public" data. Even if that's true, HiQ always has the option to get the data from the same source that LinkedIn did.

> To view the EULA, you must view the site. That's just one of the many problems wrong with assuming the EULA is binding.

Absolutely right, EULAs have all kinds of issues. In practice, the issue of having to access the site to view the license isn't a problem. You can choose after reading the EULA to not agree, and you can choose to not access any other data on LinkedIn.

But there is no reason to assume the EULA is not binding because there are no other legal documents that cover your interaction with LinkedIn, aside from any state and federal laws that might override parts of the EULA.

This is mostly irrelevant to the point I was making though, it doesn't matter if the EULA is binding. It's purpose there is to establish that LinkedIn is not providing a public service. It's communicating that there is no expectation of responsibility on the part of LinkedIn, and that doesn't really depend on whether you are specifically bound by the EULA.

It's just like a sign in a store window that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason." You can could say that the sign is not a binding contract, and go into the store naked and yelling and start breaking stuff. When they kick you out, nobody will come to the defense of your right to walk into a store that everyone else is allowed to walk into.

[redial]

The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In, like for example, the user agreement. If I want to copy and republish the user agreement I can, despite of what it might say.

If the startup were republishing private information from Linked In I would agree with you.

[dahart]

> The user agreement does not cover the "public" parts of Linked In,

I beg to differ. Their EULA covers "accessing or using" their site in any way shape or form, and defines the term "visitor" for what you're calling "public".

...

You agree that by clicking “Join Now”, “Join LinkedIn”, “Sign Up” or similar, registering, accessing or using our services (described below), you are agreeing to enter into a legally binding contract with LinkedIn (even if you are using our Services on behalf of a company). If you do not agree to this contract (“Contract” or “User Agreement”), do not click “Join Now” (or similar) and do not access or otherwise use any of our Services.

...

When you register and join the LinkedIn Service, you become a Member. If you have chosen not to register for our Services, you may access certain features as a visitor.

[mariushn]

Dahart, would you please add your email in profile? Would like to followup on your older health-related comments. Thanks!

[chongli]

That only makes sense in the context of copyright. Users' personal information cannot be copyrighted by LinkedIn.

[rickpmg]

LinkedIn never said the data was 'public' in the sense that you are using it. You are assuming that just because it can be accessed for free, by anyone with an internet connection, that it is therefore in the public realm. That is incorrect.

[jfoster]

As an example, is Netflix's collection "private"?

If yes, would it still be if they charged only $0.01 for it?

If yes, would it still be if the price was $0?

It seems silly to me to have the "rules" depend upon the price.

[int_19h]

The rules depend on whether something is copyrightable or not.

Movies are copyrightable.

Compiled catalogs of personal information are not (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R...).

[iamleppert]

As a user, it's in my benefit if a competitor comes along, takes LinkedIn's data that they are freely publishing on the public Internet, and does something useful with it.

The correct analogy would be if someone took a copy of my personal resume that I put online, freely accessible on the Internet and did something useful with it.

Heck, Google does this already by indexing and providing a directory of public content. The fact that LinkedIn 'allows' them to do this is by virtue that it makes business-sense to do so and drives traffic to their site.

The rule should be plain and simple here: if you put user content online and do not make any efforts to restrict it (i.e. no passwords, no logins), call it "public information", you do not have any rights to say who can and cannot access that content, at the minimum. Unless I'm mistaken, you also cannot claim copyright infringement, as the user technically owns that content as well -- you just have a license to publish it (either to a private or public audience).

It should be up to the user --- and in fact their right --- to police their own content online. Personally, I find it offensive that LinkedIn seeks to restrict the distribution of such content that I have published through their service, where the expectation it is public. They are not acting in my interest here, they are very clearly acting in their own selfish interest, which I find odd considering LinkedIn's supposed mission has always been to empower their users to achieve professional success. How exactly are they empowering me by restricting who I have told them can access my public content? And the fact such restrictions are solely decided by LinkedIn with no input of their users -- the ultimate owners here -- is a disgrace and violation of their own mission statement.

This kind of concept is exactly what the Internet was founded on, folks. To say or think otherwise strikes at the heart of the open web and representing yourself as such is an affront against the great platform that has given rise to so many companies and provided so much opportunity in the world for the individual.

This concept is bigger and more powerful than any one company, and deserves to be defended.

[hasenj]

> As a user, it's in my benefit if a competitor comes along, takes LinkedIn's data that they are freely publishing on the public Internet, and does something useful with it.

In this case, it's not to _your_ benefit. They're going to warn your boss that you will quit soon.

[driverdan]

> They collected the data

No they didn't. Users input most of their data.