[heyyyouu]

Please not that I am personally more pro scraping that anti. However, this article's interpretation of this ruling (which is from September 2019) is overblown and suspect:

1) This is the 9th circuit only. The 9th circuit is known for being very liberal in these kids of rulings. There is a high likelihood that this ruling could be interpreted differently in other circuits and when it goes to the supreme court.

2) Saying "it makes it legal" is more of a technicality with this ruling and NOT practicality. There is still a LOT open to interpretation with this ruling (see 1, above). And lot of what it's saying just isn't found in the case. And again, it doesn't apply everywhere.

3) This is actually a much better summary of the case: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/data-scraping-survives-... In fact, there's a number of better summaries are out there by people who actually understand both technology and law from when it happened (again, back in September 2019). Here's some others:

https://www.cooley.com/-/media/cooley/pdf/reprints/2019/2019...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190909/17571342951/big-n...

Honestly, it comes back to a lot of existing issues, like whether facts can be copyrighted (e.g., this is why recopies alone can't be), whether logins imply privacy, etc.

I personally think the ruling is in the right direction but again, I don't think this source deals with any of the complexity or the reality of what the ruling does (or still doesn't) mean.