[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.

[redial]

I do not agree with the EULA. I definitely do not agree with the EULA just by reading it. I most definitely do not agree with the EULA just by virtue of it existing and being linked to on some corner of their site. I do not agree to any terms just by visiting a webpage. I am not bound by anything other than the actual law and the contracts I have willingly entered into in writing or the digital equivalent.

If the information is restricted, then restrict it. Do not make it publicly available then claim a webpage as the ruling contract of that information when it is used in a manner you do not agree with.

[dahart]

According to their view, you do agree to the contract by using their services, which includes visiting their web pages. If you don't agree, then don't use the services and don't visit their site. Or do, and argue it in court, but it's pointless to tell me you don't agree, the contract exists.

They're not restricting access to the information. HiQ is scraping their site using bots, and LinkedIn doesn't like it. This isn't a debate about anything being publicly available or not, this is a business fight between two private companies.

[redial]

Well then, since what you are saying is that a contract only one part agreed to is a valid contract,

By reading (or not) this comment, you (“the reader") concede all the points of this discussion. The reader also agrees that the arguments presented by HackerNews user “redial” ("me", "we", "us") are correct even in case of conflict with his or her own previously stated positions, and that he/she will amend all of his/her previous comments to reflect this legally binding agreement.

[dahart]

+1 for the lols. You seem to be arguing against me for the existence of EULAs. Maybe you're not aware that these have been around and their validity has been debated for decades? Lots of people are super bugged by them, just like you are. I think's it's fairly lame too. I didn't write the EULA, and I don't care if it's a valid contract. But no matter what you say to me, no matter how much sarcasm you use, the fact is that LinkedIn's EULA says that by visiting their site, you are agreeing to their contract.

The real point I was making is that LinkedIn is establishing that they are not offering a public service. It doesn't matter whether you can be bound by their contract, the EULA is more about covering their own asses when they do things like refuse service to HiQ. The wrote the rules so that it's clear what things you can do to get banned. Regardless, they have the right to ban IPs or specific bots or whoever they want, because even though they let anyone access the site, that doesn't mean they have to let everyone access the site always. Like it or not, them's the facts.

[ryanwaggoner]

the fact is that LinkedIn's EULA says that by visiting their site, you are agreeing to their contract

So what? The whole point here is that they can say and think whatever they want, but it doesn't make any difference if the law disagrees.

[pm24601]

> According to their view,

which the judge didn't agree with. So right now your argument is counterfactual and pointless.

[dahart]

The judge did not rule on the validity of their EULA. It was an injunction.

[TheCoelacanth]

Is there any precedent for an EULA like that being enforced? Typically for a contract to be valid, acceptance has to be actively communicated. You can't be bound by a contract simply by someone saying that you have accepted it if you do something that you might have done normally.

[dahart]

> Is there any precedent for an EULA like that being enforced?

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but Wikipedia says "sometimes".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#E...

> Typically for a contract to be valid, acceptance has to be actively communicated. You can't be bound by a contract simply by someone saying that you have accepted

Again, not a lawyer, but I imagine that use of a service could legally constitute your active end of the communication. You're right, you can't be bound just because someone says, but when you use a service you've gone one step past.

Honestly, I think the EULA is more of a CYA for them than a contract, in practice. But it does establish the potential legality for two things: 1- that this is a licensed service, and 2- that they can refuse service to anyone they want for reasons of business interest.

[staticautomatic]

I just had a conversation with my own company's lawyers about this recently. Their assessment was that the spectrum from something like what LinkedIn is doing to something like a notarized paper document with a wet signature is a trade-off between ease/simplicity and enforceability.

These kinds of agreement ostensibly are enforceable, but harder to enforce.

[ekianjo]

you dont need.to sign.on to view public profiles so you dOnt enter any agreement with linkedin as a visitor.

[dahart]

You can choose to see it that way if you want. LinkedIn's EULA says otherwise. I have no opinion on whether LinkedIn's EULA is enforceable or legal, I'm only sharing the facts, and the facts are that according to LinkedIn's EULA, visitors do fall under the agreement.

[ryanwaggoner]

You seem really hung up on what their EULA says, and I'm not clear on why. The question at hand is whether their EULA applies, so whatever is in it is 100% irrelevant to that question, right?