3 ms·

By setting that up, you take on the liability for it. The defendant is whoever set it up. No different from "if I roll a car down a hill and it hits something a

By setting that up, you take on the liability for it. The defendant is whoever set it up. No different from "if I roll a car down a hill and it hits something at the bottom, how can you hold the car liable?"

stymaar 12d ago
That's not how ToS work though. ToS are contracts. If you don't sign the contract nobody can sue you for violating it. > No different from "if I roll a car down a hill and it hits something at the bottom, how can you hold the car liable?" That's the difference between criminal and civil justice. You don't need to sign a law for it to bind you, but for contracts you do.
- nkozyra 12d ago
  > If you don't sign the contract nobody can sue you for violating it. But terms of service are contracts which you sign by agreeing. Courts have looked somewhat favorably on "I didn't read that" defenses, but accepting the agreement is a legal contract between you and the service provider.
  - stymaar 12d ago
    My point is that you don't have to accept anything.
    - nkozyra 12d ago
      Sure. But then you don't get credentials and can't scrape.
      - lazide 12d ago
        Even if you get the credentials via middle man?
      - stymaar 11d ago
        You keep saying that but unless company start doing KYC there's absolutely no link between auth and ToS. The authentication mechanisms used by websites don't have a specific legal power, it's just a POST request among other GET requests sent during scraping. And we have jurisprudence saying scrapping is legal no matter what the ToS of the website says, because the scraping entity never signed up the contract. The only protection against scrapping that auth is giving you isn't a legal one, it's a technical one (you can detect and ban the scraping user account).
        cuu508 11d ago
        *scraping
- friendzis 11d ago
  > That's the difference between criminal and civil justice. You don't need to sign a law for it to bind you, but for contracts you do. Patently false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract

stymaar 12d ago

That's not how ToS work though. ToS are contracts. If you don't sign the contract nobody can sue you for violating it. > No different from "if I roll a car down a hill and it hits something at the bottom, how can you hold the car liable?" That's the difference between criminal and civil justice. You don't need to sign a law for it to bind you, but for contracts you do.

nkozyra 12d ago
> If you don't sign the contract nobody can sue you for violating it. But terms of service are contracts which you sign by agreeing. Courts have looked somewhat favorably on "I didn't read that" defenses, but accepting the agreement is a legal contract between you and the service provider.
- stymaar 12d ago
  My point is that you don't have to accept anything.
  - nkozyra 12d ago
    Sure. But then you don't get credentials and can't scrape.
    - lazide 12d ago
      Even if you get the credentials via middle man?
    - stymaar 11d ago
      You keep saying that but unless company start doing KYC there's absolutely no link between auth and ToS. The authentication mechanisms used by websites don't have a specific legal power, it's just a POST request among other GET requests sent during scraping. And we have jurisprudence saying scrapping is legal no matter what the ToS of the website says, because the scraping entity never signed up the contract. The only protection against scrapping that auth is giving you isn't a legal one, it's a technical one (you can detect and ban the scraping user account).
      - cuu508 11d ago
        *scraping
friendzis 11d ago
> That's the difference between criminal and civil justice. You don't need to sign a law for it to bind you, but for contracts you do. Patently false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract