> hiQ also asked the court to prohibit LinkedIn from blocking its access to public profiles while the court considered the merits of its request. hiQ won a preliminary injunction against LinkedIn in district court, and LinkedIn appealed.
Whether LinkedIn is the good guy or bad guy here doesn't matter when the decision creates precedence for the rest of us.
Surely a healthier precedent is that we can respond arbitrarily to requests and have no obligation to the requester. So what if I want to randomize the html structure on every request or block requests from Tor because 100% of them are abuse? Can someone take me to court on the grounds that either is effectively "blocking" their scraping syndicate? Why not?
I feel like once CFAA is off the table (which I do agree with), the cat and mouse game is a fair middle ground. Keep web scraping a sport!
> hiQ also asked the court to prohibit LinkedIn from blocking its access to public profiles while the court considered the merits of its request. hiQ won a preliminary injunction against LinkedIn in district court, and LinkedIn appealed.
Whether LinkedIn is the good guy or bad guy here doesn't matter when the decision creates precedence for the rest of us.
Surely a healthier precedent is that we can respond arbitrarily to requests and have no obligation to the requester. So what if I want to randomize the html structure on every request or block requests from Tor because 100% of them are abuse? Can someone take me to court on the grounds that either is effectively "blocking" their scraping syndicate? Why not?
I feel like once CFAA is off the table (which I do agree with), the cat and mouse game is a fair middle ground. Keep web scraping a sport!