Hacker News Reader

Comment by hyperion2010 | Hacker News Reader

hyperion2010

Ah, complaining when people look at the painting in your store front gallery on 5th avenue because you have to pay for the upkeep of the sidewalk.

View on HN

Actually, no.

It's more like complaining about others selling tickets to view said painting from the sidewalk. HiQ repackages and sells data it scrapes from LinkedIn.

Actually, no.

It's like taking pictures of the paintings from the street, and reselling those pictures.

If they don't like that... that the painting down. Simple.

Sounds like an Intellectual Property violation to me. You don't have to hide your IP in order to protect it: there are laws that deal with this.

What IP is contained within LI?

I wasn't talking about LI, I was talking about the photo scenario from the comment I was replying to.

Hmm, then that becomes a copyright issue I suppose.

The type of data being discussed here (factual data about people) cannot be copyrighted - i.e. the fact John Doe is a Software Engineer for ACME Inc is not copyrightable.

A better example I think is walking into a store and writing down what they price everything as, then selling aggregate pricing data to people. I can't see any reason that would be illegal.

Would likely be illegal if you continued to do after the store asked you to leave...

Compilations can sometimes be protected.

Well its a Database Right, which is a property right rather than copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis_database_right

As with all rights, it varies with jurisdiction.

Although I agree with you in principle, I think your analogy is flawed. The nature of a web request is that you're asking in the first place, and the serve has to serve you. If you're taking a photo, you're not asking anything; data transfer has a cost, too.

That is an interesting analogy. It reminds me of my experience visiting the Alamo in San Antonio. Once inside you cannot take photos. I cannot say for sure but I think there are armed guards that made sure cameras were not used.

Personally I think anything I can see I should be able to take a photo of for sentimental purposes.

Of course my original state was an over simplification, but I don't think it is like selling tickets, more like someone using a picture of the painting in the window to market their own products, since one person selling tickets to view the painting wouldn't do very well since they don't really 'block' the view for anyone else. I can still walk up right next to their queue and look at the painting. LinkedIn is arguing that no one should be allowed to walk by and take a picture, which is a right of panorama issue with all that that entails (in the US it would suggest that they don't have a case if they tried to use that argument by analogy).

edit: didn't see the sibling reply which makes the same point

Reply on news.ycombinator.com