If LinkedIn are being that negatively affected by a single scraper, they should deal with it - block it, only allow a specific number of requests from an IP per day, anything that doesn't involve lawsuits. The problem is them trying to pretend that publicly visible content is really private if they say so, without them trying to protect it in any real way.

"The hurt occurs when people benefit from the work the original author put into creating that data without proper compensation"

Not necessarily. If I'm paying for print of some imaginative artwork that was created using the picture of the bike, that doesn't mean the bike owner lost anything, even if he spent time building the bike with his own hands. Similarly, if the only reason why people paid Hi-Q was for the extra work that they put in, LinkedIn didn't lose money because people would not have bought their product without that extra work.

There is certainly an argument that Hi-Q should have licenced the content first, but it's public data. If they want to make licence deals, don't put it in the view of the public street then whine when people are documenting what's in public.

"It's a straw man."

No, the straw man is pretending that a copy is the same as theft. Theft is theft because someone is depriving you of the original, not because you imagine you might have had more sales if the copy didn't exist. There's a reason why there are different words for different things, and pretending that a copy is the same as taking a physical object it a lie. Period.

"I place hours of working into something that doesn't put food on the table because you can clone my work, but I can't clone my food."

But, you put the price up too high, so I opted not to buy it. Maybe borrow the CD from a friend, or listen to something else. Or, you decided I couldn't buy it in the format or region I wanted. There are real issues, but pretending that a copy = a lost sale is utter bull that's been debunked time and time again, yet is regularly repeated by people trying to inject emotional arguments instead of facts.

"I'd say it's pretty obviously interfering with their business model"

Then perhaps they should address the business model or not put their content out there in public unprotected if it's that valuable to their income.

"LinkedIn could ban IPs that make unreasonable number of requests in a short amount of time."

Yes they could. Which would not have to involve the courts in any way. Or, they could protect the content in some other way that (for example) requires a log in and adherence to T&Cs, with which they could easily kick violators off their site for non-compliance.

The issue is that LinkedIn are trying to have it both ways - gathering the benefits of public content while blocking others who use the now-public content in ways that are usually acceptable for public content to be used. Sorry, not acceptable, you pick one - take the content away from the public street or accept that some people will use what has been shown to the public.