From that article:

> However, after further appeal in another court, hiQ was found to be in breach of LinkedIn's terms, and there was a settlement.

So why would the same not apply here?

They settled out of court, that doesn't mean that they were found to be in breach of the terms.

These were some of the notable elements (worth noting that none mention breaching terms of service):

> Damages: Judgment in the amount of $500,000 is entered against hiQ, with all other monetary relief waived.

> CFAA liability: hiQ stipulates that LinkedIn experienced losses sufficient to, and “may establish liability” under a CFAA civil claim “based on hiQ’s data collection practices and based on hiQ’s direct access to password-protected pages on LinkedIn’s platforms using fake accounts.”

> California “CFAA”: hiQ stipulates that LinkedIn “may establish civil liability” under California’s state-law counterpart to the CFAA based on hiQ’s data collection practices, use of fake accounts and other means to evade detection by LinkedIn, hiQ’s direct access to password-protected pages on LinkedIn’s platforms using fake accounts, and hiQ’s unauthorized commercial use of data.

> Trespass: hiQ stipulates that LinkedIn has established judgment as to liability under California law for the common law torts of trespass to chattels and misappropriation.

> Irreparable harm: hiQ stipulates that LinkedIn has established that it has suffered an irreparable injury and that LinkedIn satisfied the remaining factors and is entitled to a permanent injunction.

https://natlawreview.com/article/hiq-and-linkedin-reach-prop...

A settlement means there was no legal ruling and no precedent set. The entire case is legally moot.

In America, you can simply pay to not lose any lawsuit ever, and thus never have to face legal consequence or changes to the law you don't like.

Paying money is the legal consequence in most situations where one loses a civil case. Very rarely is any legal precedent a result of the case even if the court finds the party liable.

And this is the system in most of the world, even if the nomenclature is different between common law countries and civil and others.

it's only legal if you have a team of lawyers though. the law still applies to the rest of us.

It is the future: I own nothing, and I've never been happier. They can sue me and take nothing.

I've been trying to convince myself I'd be able to live like Diogenes, sleep in the streets, bathe in the sea and just generally survive off scraps - but I think that only works if other people can afford to throw away scraps.

If you live in the west it’s no problem - the amount of waste there is insane

It won't be after the billionaires own everything and the rest are living off scraps already.

So if you are legally allowed to "adapt, edit or create derivative works from any materials", what's the point of the TOS?

I believe TOS is binding as long as it doesn't conflict with the law. If something is deemed fair use under the law, TOS cannot override those legal rights.

Legal rights are signed away all the time in contracts though.

Aren't there some limits on which legal rights can be signed away through a contract?

I imagine that a contract in which someone agrees to become a slave would be void.

Sure there are limits, but they seem to apply to really egregious things like selling your life or vote. We're talking about signing away the right to fair use, not entering into indentured servitude. People sign non-disparagement agreements all the time and this seems more like that than slavery.

That’s a good question. It also would not be the first time that companies use trickery and manipulation or even deliberately illegal practices for various business/financial reasons. At the very least it could be used as a tool to underpin intimidating lawsuits and another step up, regardless of the legality in the relevant jurisdiction, it could be used to influence official government foreign policy to exert pressure on a jurisdiction that permits scraping.

The TOS specify the circumstances in which the corp may take action that is unrelated to the legal system. Just because they can't sue you (and easily win) for scraping, doesn't mean they can't block you if they notice you doing it.

Google for example has a TOS and is well known for permanently banning accounts for real or imagined or AI-generated violations of it. Google banning you for breaking TOS doesn't mean you broke the law, just that you broke their rules, which apparently include a clause against being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Tell that to judyrecords with the same smug attitude.

Your textbook versus reality conceptualization of things is dogshit. It’s exploitation to do what OP did. You’re endorsing it and minimizing the ethics and this certainly shall poison the well from which you drink. Godspeed.

This is so overly dramatic it’s hard to even consider the point you’re trying to make.

You ok bud? You sound unhinged here. You post doesn't even make sense in context of the one you were replying to.

> CFAA liability: hiQ stipulates that LinkedIn experienced losses sufficient to, and “may establish liability” under a CFAA civil claim “based on hiQ’s data collection practices and based on hiQ’s direct access to password-protected pages on LinkedIn’s platforms using fake accounts.”

This was part of the terms of the settlement.