5 ms·
Can demonstrable ignoring of robots.txt help the cases of copyright infringement lawsuits against the "AI" companies, their partners, and customers?
by neilv 2y ago
Can demonstrable ignoring of robots.txt help the cases of copyright infringement lawsuits against the "AI" companies, their partners, and customers?
- adastra22 2y agoOn what legal basis?
- readyplayernull 2y agoTerms of use contract violation?
- bdangubic 2y agogood thought but zippy chance this holds up in Court
- hipadev23 2y agoRobots.txt is completely irrelevant. TOU/TOS are also irrelevant unless you restrict access to only those who have agreed to terms.
- dredmorbius 2y ago"By accessing this Site, you acknowledge that you have read, understand, and agree to abide by the terms described herein." <https://www.imperva.com/legal/website-terms-of-use/ https://www.imperva.com/legal/website-terms-of-use/> Many, many, many hits for this or similar language: <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22By+accessing+this+Site%2C+you+acknowledge%22+agree&t=ftsa&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22By+accessing+this+Site%2C+you+a...> Mind: just because it's written doesn't mean it's enforceable, but to argue that what you've just denied isn't a widely-used premise of online contracts of adhesion fails the simplest empirical test.
- hipadev23 2y agoLegal precedent in the US supports what I've stated.
- dredmorbius 2y agoCare to cite that precedent?
- flir 2y agoIn the UK, the Computer Misuse Act applies if: * There is knowledge that the intended access was unauthorised * There is an intention to secure access to any program or data held in a computer I imagine US law has similar definitions of unauthorized access? `robots.txt` is the universal standard for defining what is unauthorised access for bots. No programmer could argue they aren't aware of this, and ignoring it, for me personally, is enough to show knowledge that the intended access was unauthorised. Is that enough for a court? Not a goddamn clue. Maybe we need to find out.
- pests 2y ago> `robots.txt` is the universal standard Quite the assumption, you just upset a bunch of alien species.
- flir 2y agoDammit. Unchecked geocentric model privilege, sorry about that.
- to11mtm 2y agoI mean it might just be a matter of the right UK person filing a case; I suppose my main understanding is UK Libel/Slander laws but if my US brain goes with that my head says the burden of proof is on non-infringement. (But again, I don't know UK law.)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thayne 2y agoUniversal within the scope of the Internet.
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoAt least I don't think there are aliens connected...
- tepidsaucer 2y agoI wind up in jail for ten years if I download an episode of iCarly; Sam Altman inhales every last byte on the internet and gets a ticker tape parade. Make it make sense.
- thayne 2y agoProbably not copyright infringement. But it is probably (hopefully?) a violation of CFAA, both because it is effectively DDoSing you, and they are ignoring robots.txt. Maybe worth contacting law enforcement? Although it might not actually be Amazon.
- to11mtm 2y agoBig thing worth asking here. Depending on what 'amazon' means here (i.e. known to be Amazon specific IPs vs Cloud IPs) it could just be someone running a crawler on AWS. Or, folks failing the 'shared security model' of AWS and their stuff is compromised with botnets running on AWS. Or, folks that are quasi-spoofing 'AmazonBot' because they think it will have a better not-block rate than anonymous or other requests...
- thayne 2y agoFrom the information in the post, it sounds like the last one to me. That is, someone else spoofing an Amazonbot user agent. But it could potentially be all three.