71–80 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you write a huge javascript library and started selling it, then someone stole it and released it for free- you would issue a DMCA because you own that code. Just because its HTML doesnt make it 'not free'
What you are describing is pre-DMCA copyright. What DCMA added was laws which add sanctions against reverse-engineering closed systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't the same argument be used for the blizzard bot? One is more intentionally telling users to break the TOS, but at the end of the day the user is running the code.
And the remedy is the same in both cases: if the provider really doesn't want people using clients that do certain things, the provider needs to control access so that only clients that don't do those things can access their server. In the case of Blizzard, this would mean forcing gamers to run clients that were known by Blizzard to not contain bots; for example, Blizzard could force users to use signed client binari…
My first job was at a movie theater and we lined the wall with movie posters of the movies coming out. People just walked over to them and checked them out to see if there was anything of interest coming out in the next few months.
One of the activities in the city I live in now is a movies in the park which is sponsored by some local company. They show a quick 2 minute ad or something and mention that the company sponsored the activity. I wouldn't ever pay to go watch the movie, and am always glad that the sponsoring company essentially paid for me.
It is unfortunate that most modern advertisements online don't try to take a similar approach and show highly relevant ads or just sponsor something they want to exist.
I run a site which is 100% ad-supported, so I'm obviously biased.
There is one important difference with comparing MDY to adblock though. MDY made software specifically for WoW. Adblock does not make software specifically to target Business Insider or anyone else. Further, if this precedent was set, you could possibly go after people using out of date browsers that can't display your ad content perfectly or viewing text only or a million other ways in which ads wouldn't be left in…
Those million other ways are missing two important principles of tortuous intereference: - intent - knowledge that they're interfering with a contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't quite right. It varies, but in general, if you continue to use the site, knowing such a TOS exists, you may be bound by it (you may not, it depends on the terms, etc). You would get a pass on "the first time you accessed the web site", not "every time you did it afterwards knowing there was a TOS". This all assumes you noticed it exists. There is another question of "can i be bound by the TOS if i didn't e…
If the article seeks to attack the adblocking system itself, then I would press that the most important utility of adblockers is that they block dangerous elements on sites that the user has no history with or knowledge of. I feel perfectly comfortable browsing HN with my adblocker turned off, but I would want it turned on for 75% of the links I click from here. Also, the above linked Browse Wrap wikipedia article st…
This is an editorialization by wikipedia (sadly).
If you read the actual cases, you'll see they hinge on the standard contract stuff.
IE "(1) Did the user have either actual or constructive notice
and
(2) Did the user assent"
What it takes to do this is pretty much 100% unclear overall, and wikipedia stating otherwise is just plain wrong..
Both of these can be constructive/implied/etc, and are going to be what gets argued about in front of a judge. The difference you see in caselaw is just differences between what judges felt which was really fair.
You can find plenty of cases with only slightly different situations.
"Currently there seems to be very little expectation that the user is bound to a TOS by simply continuing to browse a web site, and I'm curious if there even exists any cases dealing with that."
Ye. Facebook's TOS, for example, has been enforced multiple times.
See, e.g, E.K.D. v. Facebook, Inc., 885 F. Supp. 2d 894 (S.D. Ill. 2012). and
Fteja v. Facebook 2012 WL 183896 (SDNY 2012)
The only agreement you find there is it's conspicuous that they add the words "and you are indicating you have read and agree to the terms of service" in various places.
So if that continues to be held enforceable, you'll probably see folks do that, and problem solved.
The rest of caselaw is still a mismash. For every example you can find a counterexample.
Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6483 (C.D. CA., March 7, 2003) (held bound to TOS just from browsing)
vs
In re Zappos.com, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 893 F.Supp. 2d 1058 (Dist. Ct. Nevada 2012). (TOS was not conspicuous enough)
vs
Hubbert v. Dell Corp., 2005 WL 1968774 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (court upheld arbitration clause in Dell’s for cause regarding alleged false claims made by Dell to online purchasers of the computers. Court found different colored hyperlinks on each page like a multipage contract)
etc
So i return to my original statement: Most of the court cases seem to depend more on what relief is being sought and what the TOS says more than what happened and where it was. They shouldn't, but they are :)
Forum selection clauses, for example, that nobody likely read, have the carnival cruise precedent from SCOTUS (TL;DR forum selection clause on back of printed ticket that nobody ever saw until after they purchased is binding)
However, all cases i've seen where the user was told "and you agree, explicitly, to the terms of the TOS" somewhere mildly conspicuous, came out in favor of the TOS holder, even when no explicit assent was given through clicking, etc.
The cases pretty much all agree on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without a license, there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website, because the copyright law says so. Legally speaking, you either agree to whatever license the website has in place, or you've got no right to view its content. Of course, such a license cannot have provisions that conflict with copyright or contract law and so doctrines like the fair use applies, etc. Of course, you could say that you can't r…
>there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website Except for the fact that it is being purposefully made available to the general public.
Just a moment, is the argument stating that an implicit contract (that is, the Terms of Service) which I was not required to accept to browse the website, can make using an Ad Blocker illegal? What about: malware distributed through ad networks, offensive advertisements (the original reason I installed an ad blocker!), and so many advertisements that a midrange spec'd machine staggers when scrolling or navigating?
By browsing the website, the argument is that you implicitly accepted the ToS. It's legally shaky, and generally the ToS or a link to them must have been provably shown to the user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap
• Zappos placed a link to its Terms of Use between the middle and bottom of each page, only visible if a user scrolls down.
• If the Zappos.com homepage is printed to hard copy, the link appears on page 3 of 4.
• The Terms of Use link was the same size, font, and color as most other non-significant links.
• The website did not direct a user to the Terms of Use when creating an account, logging into an existing account, or making a purchase.
This describes Terms of Use links for virtually all sites, even today. I'd say that this makes browse wrap very shaky, legally.
[1]: http://www.cairncross.com/eatdrinkshopstay/are-the-terms-of-... [2]: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada...
Personally, I find any site assuming that their terms of service is enforceable to be shaky because EULA law is also traditionally shaky.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without a license, there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website, because the copyright law says so. Legally speaking, you either agree to whatever license the website has in place, or you've got no right to view its content. Of course, such a license cannot have provisions that conflict with copyright or contract law and so doctrines like the fair use applies, etc. Of course, you could say that you can't r…
>>Without a license, there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website, because the copyright law says so. Is there any case law to back that up? That's a very odd reading of copyright law. Would you make the same claim about listening to a radio, viewing a television broadcast, or reading a poster?
On the other hand, to the extent that people are more willing to pay ad-blocking companies than the web sites that provide content, I think something needs to change. Ad-blocking companies seem to earn a lot of revenue, disproportionate to their value-add. Compared to all the complex products in the world trying to make a buck, the DOM analyzers and regex lists in ad-blockers are hardly ground-breaking things worthy of massive income. They benefit primarily from having a huge audience.
I've commented before[1] on how protocols might cage data use and scripting in a reasonable way.
Take away ad blockers and I will start pirating news. That is, extract and redistribute without ads. I'm already tempted to start doing it. Even with noscript and adblocker plus the news sites are annoying to deal with.
I have no problem paying for access to quality content and am more than wiling to pay for more of it. But if my only is option consists of being inundated with annoying and intrusive ads at every turn, I will block them at every turn and feel not a pang of guilt and regret.
It's a bit rich for organizations that promote self-interest and free markets to harangue their customers with lectures on the immorality of ad blocking. I am acting out of self-interest when I choose to block ads and the market should have gotten the hint by now that the public (i.e., customers or potential customers) put with ads as a necessary evil - at the best of times. This is not the best of times: internet ads are intrusive, hog resources, are served by dodgy outfits, present security risks, are an eyesore, and often flog stuff that I will never ever buy. Therefore, I block ads q
Come on , is this pitiful whining about the evils of ad blocking really coming from the same is w tech industry that touts adaptability, innovation and the willingness to try new things as core strengths? The market has spoken and it has said loudly and clearly "ads suck, dude!" Therefor, I actively and with not even a pang of guilt, block ads. On both by mobile devices and big computer I use open source host file tweaks rather than a "commercial" plugins (Adblock, AdBlock Plus). Way less bloat, more robust and no backroom deals selling whitelist space to advertisers.
Jaron Lanier has been widely criticized, even ridiculed, for his, admittedly convoluted, micropayment system concepts but at least he's thinking about the possibilities. Because the ad serving model is doomed to a slow death by ever diminishing returns. Now is the time to innovate.
Last word goes to Lanier and his succinct take on the, heh, bad taste left by an ad driven world: “Funding a civilization through advertising is like trying to get nutrition by connecting a tube from one’s anus to one’s mouth.”