top | item 46538400 (no title) randyrand | 1 month ago google will lose, and I'm surprised they are even trying. hiQ v. LinkedIn already settled this: scraping public web pages isn’t “unauthorized access,” even if the site says no via robots.txt or ToS. Those aren’t locks. discuss order hn newest littlecranky67|1 month ago In Germany, this was also already ruled lawful by the highest court (in the context of plane ticket prices scraping). bitbasher|1 month ago HiQ lost on appeal, Microsoft won gnfargbl|1 month ago No, it's more complicated than that: https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/sourcingatmorganlewis/2022...The short answer is that scraping isn't a CFAA offence but might be a terms and conditions violation, depending on the specifics of the access. sjtgraham|1 month ago Incorrect. OP's view is present day 9th Circuit precedent.
littlecranky67|1 month ago In Germany, this was also already ruled lawful by the highest court (in the context of plane ticket prices scraping).
bitbasher|1 month ago HiQ lost on appeal, Microsoft won gnfargbl|1 month ago No, it's more complicated than that: https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/sourcingatmorganlewis/2022...The short answer is that scraping isn't a CFAA offence but might be a terms and conditions violation, depending on the specifics of the access. sjtgraham|1 month ago Incorrect. OP's view is present day 9th Circuit precedent.
gnfargbl|1 month ago No, it's more complicated than that: https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/sourcingatmorganlewis/2022...The short answer is that scraping isn't a CFAA offence but might be a terms and conditions violation, depending on the specifics of the access.
littlecranky67|1 month ago
bitbasher|1 month ago
gnfargbl|1 month ago
The short answer is that scraping isn't a CFAA offence but might be a terms and conditions violation, depending on the specifics of the access.
sjtgraham|1 month ago