3 ms·
Doesn't seem like a valid analogy to me. Access to an API isn't the same thing as intentionally accessing a paid service for free. If someone writes an app tha
by d110af5ccf 4y ago
Doesn't seem like a valid analogy to me. Access to an API isn't the same thing as intentionally accessing a paid service for free.
If someone writes an app that somehow bypasses needing a Netflix account and lets you stream video from them without paying them. That would be analogous. The intent would be to illegitimately access a paid service.
Using a third party client with a valid account to access API endpoints that respond to that account. I don't see a problem with that. I don't care what the ToS says. It should not be legal to disallow that in a ToS. It also shouldn't be legal to intentionally obfuscate your APIs.
Third party clients are okay and attempting to block them is morally wrong and should not be legal.
- dleslie 4y agoBy ignoring the agreed upon terms of service and violating those terms you would be violating the consent of the service provider. If you don't find those terms favorable the correct action is to not use their service; violating their consent is not morally sound.
- d110af5ccf 4y agoWell on the contrary, I'm saying that I find those particular terms immoral, that those terms should be disallowed by law, and that I think it is either morally neutral or possibly even virtuous to intentionally and knowingly violate them. It's similar to civil disobedience I suppose, except in this case not a law but rather a civil "contract" inasmuch as an impenetrable ToS that a user is forced to click through can be viewed as a proper contract as opposed to a written notification from the vendor that they intend to terminate your service if they discover you doing any of the following things.