I feel like it's premature celebration? This seems like a very specific case, and not just violation of a terms of service in general?
Courts: Violating a Website’s Terms of Service Is Not a Crime
11–20 of 174 posts
Re: Courts: Violating a Website’s Terms of Service Is Not a Crime
#12Does anybody know how this pertains to data scraping? Like many coders/tinkerers, I've been frustrated that TOS'es often forbid bots from scraping data from many sites. There are lots of ways data can be better visualized or synthesized than is currently done, but terms of service make this impossible (unless you're just doing a small side project you never plan to publish). Does this mean that scraping is acceptable…
This case is explicitly about data scraping. If the site's TOS forbids scraping, but allows access, this decision says "scrape away".
Note, however, that this is a Ninth Circuit decision. If you don't live within the bounds of the Ninth Circuit, this decision doesn't apply to you.
Re: Courts: Violating a Website’s Terms of Service Is Not a Crime
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's "legal" would be up to a jury. Note, however, that a deep pocket could bankrupt you simply through legal mechansims such as discovery.
Strictly speaking, what is legal is up to a judge, and whether the evidence shows that you've done what is legal may be up to either a jury or a judge depending on whether it's a jury or bench trial.
Strictly speaking, what evidence is admissible is up to a judge. In a jury trial, what is legal is up to the jury. Juries can still nullify, as was made clear in the Zárate verdicts.
Re: Courts: Violating a Website’s Terms of Service Is Not a Crime
#14Does anybody know how this pertains to data scraping? Like many coders/tinkerers, I've been frustrated that TOS'es often forbid bots from scraping data from many sites. There are lots of ways data can be better visualized or synthesized than is currently done, but terms of service make this impossible (unless you're just doing a small side project you never plan to publish). Does this mean that scraping is acceptable…
Just tell them that you’re using mturk.
Re: Courts: Violating a Website’s Terms of Service Is Not a Crime
#15This is positive news. It seems like the more liberal approach taken when protocols were written is being challenged more by young users who grew up under more stable rules that accepted terms of service as very strong. When I was growing up you went by what the protocol allowed. If an http response came back you have access, if it prompted for credentials, then you didn’t have access. The mere idea that a web server…
I don't think it has anything to do w/ age. I believe that most people just see rules and laws as very firm, and unquestionable.
Re: Courts: Violating a Website’s Terms of Service Is Not a Crime
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strictly speaking, what is legal is up to a judge, and whether the evidence shows that you've done what is legal may be up to either a jury or a judge depending on whether it's a jury or bench trial.
Strictly speaking, what evidence is admissible is up to a judge. In a jury trial, what is legal is up to the jury. Juries can still nullify, as was made clear in the Zárate verdicts.
Strictly speaking, even when the jury nullifies, it does so by answering questions of fact, not law (even though some or all of the jurors may be substituting judgements of law for fact.)
And, even more strictly speaking, in a civil case (which this subthread is addressing) it's all up to the judge anyway, even in a jury trial, since (unlike in a criminal case, where this can only happen to the benefit of the defendant, as a judgement of acquittal), a decision for either party may be entered, after the jury verdict, as a judgement as a matter of law (aka judgement notwithstanding the verdict.) This makes nullification essentially a dead issue in civil trials.
Re: Courts: Violating a Website’s Terms of Service Is Not a Crime
#17IANAL, but violation of terms of service seems like a breach of contract, not a crime. For that sort of thing there is always the civil court system if the plaintiff feels like their loss due to the violation is high enough to warrant pursuing the legal case.
But maybe the actual loss caused by the automated downloads in this case wasn't high enough and they pushed the criminal angle to make some kind of point.
Re: Courts: Violating a Website’s Terms of Service Is Not a Crime
#18This is positive news. It seems like the more liberal approach taken when protocols were written is being challenged more by young users who grew up under more stable rules that accepted terms of service as very strong. When I was growing up you went by what the protocol allowed. If an http response came back you have access, if it prompted for credentials, then you didn’t have access. The mere idea that a web server…
I continue to be shocked that Twitter convinced an entire generation of software developers that you need to obtain something called an "API key"--which can somehow be refused or even revoked once granted--in order to write a client for their protocol. "Back in my day", we just reverse engineered the official client and used whatever algorithm it used to talk to the server and called the war won :/.
Re: Courts: Violating a Website’s Terms of Service Is Not a Crime
#19Does this mean it is also reversed? If a person chooses to not acknowledge the website's terms, does this mean a website doesn't have to abide by its own terms and can make up its own rules as it goes along?
Re: Courts: Violating a Website’s Terms of Service Is Not a Crime
#20IANAL, but violation of terms of service seems like a breach of contract, not a crime. For that sort of thing there is always the civil court system if the plaintiff feels like their loss due to the violation is high enough to warrant pursuing the legal case. But maybe the actual loss caused by the automated downloads in this case wasn't high enough and they pushed the criminal angle to make some kind of point.
There was no loss. They are attempting to missuse the law in order to provide an oportunity to destroy a competitor because Oracle is run by bad people.