Web Scraping for Me, but Not for Thee

Re:Web Scraping for Me, but Not for Thee by rendaw on Saturday August 26, 2023 @01:13AM (#37270116)

So does that mean the conclusion is that scraping is bad? Or did the 9th circuit establish that scraping is OK and hiQ suffered defeat on some other basis?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Web Scraping for Me, but Not for Thee by beardedwizard on Saturday August 26, 2023 @02:45AM (#37270410)

It seems to me they were defeated on the terms of some other contract they had with LI, not the scraping?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Web Scraping for Me, but Not for Thee by beardedwizard on Saturday August 26, 2023 @02:51AM (#37270440)

Clarification: it's the breach of terms of service that meets this bar for breach of contract in this case

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Web Scraping for Me, but Not for Thee by Klonoar on Saturday August 26, 2023 @04:40AM (#37270857)

If this is the case, I guess what I'm really wondering is: does the existence of the EULA cause this, or was it HiQ having "turks" sign in to do it - thus accepting the EULA?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Web Scraping for Me, but Not for Thee by beardedwizard on Saturday August 26, 2023 @05:59AM (#37271254)

I think that's exactly it, they had automation logging in, which meant they accepted the tos, then violated it. The govt has sided with business in these cases (it seems)

[ Parent | on HN ]