7 ms·

If HTTP was a contract whereby you agreed to look at everything that was sent over then your analogy would make sense. But HTTP is a protocol, not a legally bi

If HTTP was a contract whereby you agreed to look at everything that was sent over then your analogy would make sense. But HTTP is a protocol, not a legally binding contract. So no.

anseljh 11y ago
The terms of service for the site that's delivered to you over HTTP, though--that is a legally binding contract. Some have no-ad-blocking terms.
- evilduck 11y ago
  Contracts have to be agreed upon by both parties. If you want to have users agree to a ToS and protect your content, you should 401 their requests for your content until that happens. Otherwise fuck off, it's a public request.
- msandford 11y ago
  If that were true, then we will start a company together and become rich! 1. Create a website with a TOS that states "all webpages are for your personal consumption only, any permanent copies which are used for business purposes (including indexing!) constitute grave harm to us, worth $100 per instance" 2. Make many, many pages on that website which all link to one another, let's have at least say 1000s of them 3. Ensure that they rank well for very obscure terms, terms which have a very short results list 4. Do not avail ourselves of robots.txt 5. Get our website linked to through means which do not make it obvious that we're trying to get it linked to 6. Wait for google to index the website 7. Gather the evidence of the indexing activity via search results 8. File a lawsuit against google for breach of contract re: TOS and collect millions If what you're saying is true, then this is a literally foolproof plan to become millionaires (or more!).
- monochromatic 11y ago
  95% of the websites I visit, I've never seen the terms of service. Is it still binding on me?
- wang_li 11y ago
  This is brilliant. I've added a request header to my browser: X-You-Owe-Me-If-You-Send-Content-In-Response-To-This-Request: $1,000,000,000 I'm going to be rich, rich, rich!!!!
- anseljh 11y ago
  Downvoting reality.. nice work, HN! Here's how contracts work: A makes an offer to exchange something of value. If B accepts that offer, there's a contract. How's that work for websites? The website publishes its TOS. You go to the website and are able to look at the TOS. If you keep using the site, you're held to the TOS. You've impliedly agreed to it. If you disagree with it, you can leave. There is certainly some legal fiction going on here. Of course most users don't read the TOS, and even if they tried to, they wouldn't understand them. But courts have enforced them anyway. What would happen if they didn't? It would be anarchy. There are limits to what TOSes can do, sure. But the point of what I said -- that TOS are contracts, and can bind you -- that is true. Mocking that truth is pretty silly and uninformed.
s73v3r 11y ago
No, that is a cop out and a rationalization for why you feel you're entitled to stuff for free.
- msandford 11y ago
  I don't use ad blocking software! So it can't be considered that I'm using some kind of cop-out or rationalization, since I'm not doing the thing that is supposedly bad. I think there's a huge difference between what's legal and moral. I think ad blocking is quite legal, and morally questionable. If the publishers want to get together and define a new protocol where acceptance of the terms of the TOS is included in the standard and then convince everyone to switch to it, they're free to do that. I suspect that they won't have any luck, but there's nothing stopping them. Again, I say this as a person who does not use ad blocking software.
- Khaine 11y ago
  Sites like eBay hosted malvertising (http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/ads-on-ebay-and-drudge-report-were-coopted-by-malware-for-three-weeks http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/ads-on-ebay-and-drudg...) for 3 weeks. 3 fking weeks!! This is unacceptable. Simply visiting a website with ads poses a threat to the security of your devices. Until ad networks and publishers fix this, they can go fk themselves. I will block ads to protect my devices.

If HTTP was a contract whereby you agreed to look at everything that was sent over then your analogy would make sense. But HTTP is a protocol, not a legally binding contract. So no.

anseljh 11y ago

The terms of service for the site that's delivered to you over HTTP, though--that is a legally binding contract. Some have no-ad-blocking terms.

evilduck 11y ago
Contracts have to be agreed upon by both parties. If you want to have users agree to a ToS and protect your content, you should 401 their requests for your content until that happens. Otherwise fuck off, it's a public request.
msandford 11y ago
If that were true, then we will start a company together and become rich! 1. Create a website with a TOS that states "all webpages are for your personal consumption only, any permanent copies which are used for business purposes (including indexing!) constitute grave harm to us, worth $100 per instance" 2. Make many, many pages on that website which all link to one another, let's have at least say 1000s of them 3. Ensure that they rank well for very obscure terms, terms which have a very short results list 4. Do not avail ourselves of robots.txt 5. Get our website linked to through means which do not make it obvious that we're trying to get it linked to 6. Wait for google to index the website 7. Gather the evidence of the indexing activity via search results 8. File a lawsuit against google for breach of contract re: TOS and collect millions If what you're saying is true, then this is a literally foolproof plan to become millionaires (or more!).
monochromatic 11y ago
95% of the websites I visit, I've never seen the terms of service. Is it still binding on me?
wang_li 11y ago
This is brilliant. I've added a request header to my browser: X-You-Owe-Me-If-You-Send-Content-In-Response-To-This-Request: $1,000,000,000 I'm going to be rich, rich, rich!!!!
anseljh 11y ago
Downvoting reality.. nice work, HN! Here's how contracts work: A makes an offer to exchange something of value. If B accepts that offer, there's a contract. How's that work for websites? The website publishes its TOS. You go to the website and are able to look at the TOS. If you keep using the site, you're held to the TOS. You've impliedly agreed to it. If you disagree with it, you can leave. There is certainly some legal fiction going on here. Of course most users don't read the TOS, and even if they tried to, they wouldn't understand them. But courts have enforced them anyway. What would happen if they didn't? It would be anarchy. There are limits to what TOSes can do, sure. But the point of what I said -- that TOS are contracts, and can bind you -- that is true. Mocking that truth is pretty silly and uninformed.

s73v3r 11y ago

No, that is a cop out and a rationalization for why you feel you're entitled to stuff for free.

msandford 11y ago
I don't use ad blocking software! So it can't be considered that I'm using some kind of cop-out or rationalization, since I'm not doing the thing that is supposedly bad. I think there's a huge difference between what's legal and moral. I think ad blocking is quite legal, and morally questionable. If the publishers want to get together and define a new protocol where acceptance of the terms of the TOS is included in the standard and then convince everyone to switch to it, they're free to do that. I suspect that they won't have any luck, but there's nothing stopping them. Again, I say this as a person who does not use ad blocking software.
Khaine 11y ago
Sites like eBay hosted malvertising (http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/ads-on-ebay-and-drudge-report-were-coopted-by-malware-for-three-weeks http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/ads-on-ebay-and-drudg...) for 3 weeks. 3 fking weeks!! This is unacceptable. Simply visiting a website with ads poses a threat to the security of your devices. Until ad networks and publishers fix this, they can go fk themselves. I will block ads to protect my devices.