Hacker News Reader

Comment by datalopers | Hacker News Reader

And the 9th Circuit Court has determined that publicly accessible data does not require a license and the provider cannot dictate the means in which a user can access it. If a provider wants to do that, they need to place that content behind a walled garden.

[1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/1...

View on HN

> LinkedIn has no protected property interest in the data contributed by its users, as the users retain ownership over their profiles. And as to the publicly available profiles, the users quite evidently intend them to be accessed by others

> we cannot, on the record before us, conclude that those interests—or more specifically, LinkedIn’s interest in preventing hiQ from scraping those profiles—are significant enough to outweigh hiQ’s interest in continuing its business

These are key details of the decision you linked, and that's why that decision wouldn't apply to this situation.

Excuse me for interrupting, but what has access to do with publication? The problem that someone might have with an archive-site copying and publishing the content on the archive-site's domain isn't about the copying, it's about the publishing.

If all they did was archive but not make these archives publicly available, it would be different case -- if it was a case at all, because nobody would know that they're doing it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com