1. 9
  1.  

  2. 5

    I’m not sure if I’m missing half the article or parsing the title wrong, but I’m not sure what “and technically prohibited it” is applying to here. Great to hear, at least - I hope this gets appealed to the Supreme Court and affirmed. I’ve got some projects I’ve put on hold due to requests from publishers that I’m simply not prepared to fight in terms of money, time, and resources.

    1. 2

      I was wondering the same thing. I’m not sure how the Supreme Court technically prohibited anything.

    2. 3

      As ever people misunderstand the US legal system: this ruling only binds federal courts in the 9th circuit, which cover the west coast.

      Two other parties going at each other in another part of the country may or may not find that the law is the same.

      1. 1

        Most importantly, the appeals court also upheld a lower court ruling that prohibits LinkedIn from interfering with hiQ’s web scraping of its site. This fundamentally changes the balance of power in dealing with such cases in the future.

        The optimist in me sees the end of Captchas. But the pessimist in me sees the end of Captchas.

        1. 1

          Does this factor into the Oracle v. Google supreme court case about Java APIs? Web site scraping is a lot like an API, and if companies are now prohibited from changing this “API” to make scraping more difficult, then that seems to assume APIs are public. Maybe I’m reading too much into it…