3 ms·
I'm not a lawyer either but I don't see what's wrong with that argument. The tool that Beeper built isn't infringing any laws, reverse engineering in this conte
by dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
I'm not a lawyer either but I don't see what's wrong with that argument. The tool that Beeper built isn't infringing any laws, reverse engineering in this context is perfectly legal. They're not responsible for their users' use of the tools they build and their consequent violation of the TOS.
- ethanbond 3y agoThat's not generally true in practice. Especially when it is marketed to end users as a TOS-violating product and doubly so when it was originally a commercialized product.
- pr0zac 3y agoTOSes are not legally binding so who cares?
- ethanbond 3y agoWhat is up with this meme around here? Of course terms of service are legally binding. They're a contract. It is possible to put unenforceable terms in a TOS, but it's simply untrue that "TOSes are not legally binding." What do you think is the distinction between a legally binding contract and a TOS?
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoYou say that, but what is Apple going to sue Beeper for? Tortious interference? That seems a stretch. In a similar vein: has any maker of web scraping tools been sued by a website? I couldn't find anything.