<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: As Everyone Expected Years Ago, hiQ&#8217;s CFAA Wins Don&#8217;t Mean It Can Freely Scrape&#8211;hiQ v. LinkedIn (Guest Blog Post, Part 1 of 2)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/as-everyone-expected-years-ago-hiqs-cfaa-wins-dont-mean-it-can-freely-scrape-hiq-v-linkedin-guest-blog-post-part-1-of-2.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/as-everyone-expected-years-ago-hiqs-cfaa-wins-dont-mean-it-can-freely-scrape-hiq-v-linkedin-guest-blog-post-part-1-of-2.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2022 15:14:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hello, You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Web Scraping Laws (Guest Blog Post, Part 2 of 2) - Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/as-everyone-expected-years-ago-hiqs-cfaa-wins-dont-mean-it-can-freely-scrape-hiq-v-linkedin-guest-blog-post-part-1-of-2.htm#comment-3495</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hello, You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Web Scraping Laws (Guest Blog Post, Part 2 of 2) - Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2022 14:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=24592#comment-3495</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] on the denouement of the hiQ v. LnkedIn case, which ended this week with a total loss for hiQ. The prior part explained the most recent ruling, a devastating but not unexpected loss for hiQ. This part debunks [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] on the denouement of the hiQ v. LnkedIn case, which ended this week with a total loss for hiQ. The prior part explained the most recent ruling, a devastating but not unexpected loss for hiQ. This part debunks [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
