Thanks for laying out that very clearly. I think the big thing we still don’t agree on is whether publishing data on a website on the internet automatically makes that data “public” where the whole world now has a right to that data. In the physical world, we have a sense of control over spaces. A store is a public place in that anyone can walk in, but if you were loitering and making customers uncomfortable, you could be asked to leave. Why is a website any different? If someone is making other customers uncomfortable (by scraping and mis-using their data), why can’t the website block that to protect their users? I do think “scraping” is different than an individual visiting a website and viewing one page too. Just because LinkedIn allows Google to scrape it’s site for search indexing doesn’t mean it should let any other site. If HiQ only visited a few profiles, it would be perhaps a different question.
Anyway ultimately — i think this is a case where we’ll have to agree to disagree. I do think a web service has the right to limit who else can access content on that website. The courts as of the injunction don’t believe the current laws allow that. It will be interesting to see this make its way through and how the courts and lawmakers progress on issues like this and net neutrality and more.