3 ms·
The NYT seems to think it "provokes questions over online identity" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/us/28internet.html?ref=technology http://www.nytimes.com/
by sh1mmer 18y ago
The NYT seems to think it "provokes questions over online identity" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/us/28internet.html?ref=technology http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/us/28internet.html?ref=tec...) not that they don't publish rhetorical Orwell inspired headlines.
However, as I said above they jury upheld the site's TOS which is hardly a landmark ruling. The NYT says the difference was it's only previously been used to stop "hackers". I still don't see the excitement here.
The TOS are a perfectly legitimate legal instrument to use against people violating the spirit of your site. It's common to see people in court over TOS violations caused by their bots. It seems equally obvious MySpace would be happy to press TOS infringement in this particularly heinous case.
- eucalyptus 18y agoDo you have examples of bot TOS violations going to court?
- sh1mmer 18y agoFirst hit on Google for "bot tos violation court case" http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/07/14/blizzard-wins-sj-mdy/ http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/07/14/blizzard-wins-sj-mdy/
- wmf 18y agoThe TOS are a perfectly legitimate legal instrument to use against people violating the spirit of your site. It's common to see people in court over TOS violations caused by their bots. A civil suit for violating a TOS is one thing, but this was a criminal case. Is it perfectly legitimate to put someone in jail for violating a TOS?