Live data from Hacker News

Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

blog.agiletortoise.com

11–20 of 111 posts

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#11
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can put "Users may not breathe while using this website" in your ToS but that doesn't make it enforceable. A ToS has to have some basis in law.

Ok... again, not trying to be combative but: a) This still doesn't really answer my question. b) Would it be illegal to put up a website and say that essentially no one can use it? Aside from some exceptions like discrimination, ToS's define how you can use a tool, which is exactly what they were doing. Is there some law stating that if you host a website, you must allow users to link to it in any way they like?

There is a serious legal question about whether or not a ToS for a website is enforceable. Probably, if ANY ToS is enforceable then this one is. But it's an open question. The argument against enforceability goes something like this:

TOS enforcement stems from contract law. A principle of contract law says that a contract is binding on both parties if they agreed to it, but there must be SOME benefit to each party. A TOS between a website and its users clearly meets this threshold, but in this case agiletortoise didn't gain any benefit from the website -- he simply wrote a program that directed the user's browser to go there.

That being said, the best solution is the one that agiletortoise used: simply direct people to someplace less hostile, like Google, Bing, or Wikipedia, instead of Wolfram Alpha. Wolfram Alpha loses, everyone else wins.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#12
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can put "Users may not breathe while using this website" in your ToS but that doesn't make it enforceable. A ToS has to have some basis in law.

Ok... again, not trying to be combative but: a) This still doesn't really answer my question. b) Would it be illegal to put up a website and say that essentially no one can use it? Aside from some exceptions like discrimination, ToS's define how you can use a tool, which is exactly what they were doing. Is there some law stating that if you host a website, you must allow users to link to it in any way they like?

> Would it be illegal to put up a website

> Is there some law stating that if you host a website

You're looking at this backwards.

The TOS is not a contract that automatically applies to everyone; I don't have to agree to it if I link to your site.

Generally, if you want to prevent people from using your website in a certain way (that's not blatant abuse/hacking/etc), you're going to have to resort to technical solutions, because your only legal recourse is copyright law, which may or may not apply.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#13
The EFF has been doing some good work on TOS abuse. https://www.eff.org/issues/terms-of-abuse I'm sure they would be interested because this linking policy is absurd. There is no way a practice like this would be 'illegal' anywhere but on Apple's app store where I imagine Wolfram Alpha holds at least a little sway.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#14
post #3

He says they are "totally within their rights", but he is wrong. He's making links to their web pages. They are not "totally within their rights" to try to forbid that.

Are you sure of that? If so, you posses more certainty than most judiciaries/legislatures. It's a vexed and fraught issue. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Copyright_asp...

There may be cases where linking violates copyright (Total News seems reasonable, although that's really probably more of a trademark issue), but I think the main problem is that most judiciaries and legislatures are a bit unclear on how the internet works.

However, I'm also in a better position than judiciaries and legislatures, since I'm talking about right and wrong, not legal and illegal.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#15
post #3

He says they are "totally within their rights", but he is wrong. He's making links to their web pages. They are not "totally within their rights" to try to forbid that.

As I read this, he's not making links to their web pages. He's deep linking to their content and displaying it within what appears to be a custom browser. While there is plenty of debate about the propriety of deep linking and whether sites have the right to bar deep linking, displaying content within a custom browser is analogous to 'framing' content without permission, and framing content a no-no. Creating deep lin…

[deleted]

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#16
post #11
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok... again, not trying to be combative but: a) This still doesn't really answer my question. b) Would it be illegal to put up a website and say that essentially no one can use it? Aside from some exceptions like discrimination, ToS's define how you can use a tool, which is exactly what they were doing. Is there some law stating that if you host a website, you must allow users to link to it in any way they like?

There is a serious legal question about whether or not a ToS for a website is enforceable. Probably, if ANY ToS is enforceable then this one is. But it's an open question. The argument against enforceability goes something like this: TOS enforcement stems from contract law. A principle of contract law says that a contract is binding on both parties if they agreed to it, but there must be SOME benefit to each party. A…

but in this case agiletortoise didn't gain any benefit from the website -- he simply wrote a program that directed the user's browser to go there.

I don't get that. Doesn't agiletortoise get benefit when their users get benefit?

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#17
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I read this, he's not making links to their web pages. He's deep linking to their content and displaying it within what appears to be a custom browser. While there is plenty of debate about the propriety of deep linking and whether sites have the right to bar deep linking, displaying content within a custom browser is analogous to 'framing' content without permission, and framing content a no-no. Creating deep lin…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#18
post #9
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok... again, not trying to be combative but: a) This still doesn't really answer my question. b) Would it be illegal to put up a website and say that essentially no one can use it? Aside from some exceptions like discrimination, ToS's define how you can use a tool, which is exactly what they were doing. Is there some law stating that if you host a website, you must allow users to link to it in any way they like?

>Is there some law stating that if you host a website, you must allow users to link to it in any way they like? None that I know of specifically - however putting a website up is an implicit contract allowing normal web usage (for credits: now define normal and enforce that contract).

I don't think you have to bring implicit contracts into it. If I walk down the street and someone's shadow falls on me, I simply don't have a cause of action against them. If someone looks at me, I don't have a cause of action against them. If someone calls my name on the street, I don't have a cause of action against them. (Barring extraordinary circumstances, of course.) You don't need to invent theories about how I'm entering into an implicit contract with the whole world by going out on the street, among whose terms are that people may allow their shadows to fall on me and look at me. It's simply that no tort is created by looking at a person or linking to a web page.

There's no law granting exclusive rights in URLs unless they're copyrightable.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#19
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure of that? If so, you posses more certainty than most judiciaries/legislatures. It's a vexed and fraught issue. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Copyright_asp...

There may be cases where linking violates copyright (Total News seems reasonable, although that's really probably more of a trademark issue), but I think the main problem is that most judiciaries and legislatures are a bit unclear on how the internet works. However, I'm also in a better position than judiciaries and legislatures, since I'm talking about right and wrong, not legal and illegal.

Ah OK. I was thinking of rights in the sense of "rights enshrined in law," as in "European Convention on Human Rights," rather than what is ethically or morally right.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#20
post #3

He says they are "totally within their rights", but he is wrong. He's making links to their web pages. They are not "totally within their rights" to try to forbid that.

As I read this, he's not making links to their web pages. He's deep linking to their content and displaying it within what appears to be a custom browser. While there is plenty of debate about the propriety of deep linking and whether sites have the right to bar deep linking, displaying content within a custom browser is analogous to 'framing' content without permission, and framing content a no-no. Creating deep lin…

I'm dubious about this idea that web site owners have the right to dictate which web browsers their users are permitted to use to access their site, but it's certainly more colorable than a complaint about launching Mobile Safari with their page. It could be passing off, if nothing else.
Post reply on HN