5 ms·

I view it much like a bar owner. The bar is default-open to any patron. But, if a patron gets drunk and makes a scene, they can be asked to leave. If that pa

I view it much like a bar owner. The bar is default-open to any patron. But, if a patron gets drunk and makes a scene, they can be asked to leave. If that patron sneaks around back and climbs in through an open window, they are trespassing. The actual legal details may be different, but that's how I see this case.

atmosx 13y ago
That's a bit naive: If that's the case, then you need to put a user/password. Having a website on the internet is like shouting on a public square: it's main function is to be accessible world-wide (or internet-wide). So if you "shout" on a public square (blog, post, etc.) you can't tell which group of people can and can not hear what you say. The bar example would be fit for websites that raise paywalls, or some sort of access control. That's idiotic, it's just another case where the judge is 20 years behind current affairs, he is judging something he clearly doesn't understand.
- processcontrol 13y ago
  Having a website is not at all like 'shouting on a public square' and is exactly like having a bar open to the public. Craigslist told a patron they couldn't come in any more. The patron put on a fake mustache and tried to come in the back door. Would you support someone scraping a blog to repost it elsewhere? Do you support crawlers that don't respect robots.txt? I don't see a problem with Craigslist saying 'No, you can't scrape our users content to post on your website'. The exact details of which laws and how the court case went may not be correct, but at a theoretical level the website as open-to-public bar/store/etc is a perfectly valid analogy.
  - sejje 13y ago
    And what makes it hilarious is that the fake moustache is seemingly illegal.
    - Helianthus 13y ago
      That's where I get hesitant; I'm on Craigslist's side and fully agree with the bar analogy, but this legal precedent could easily get misused. Fake mustaches for everyone!
      - mbreese 13y ago
        > this legal precedent could easily get misused It's actually pretty narrow. If you have received sufficient notice that you are no longer allowed to access a resource (in this case, the cease and desist letter), then you can't use technical measures to mask who you are and try to access the resource.
        sejje 13y ago
        What you said is unrelated to the mustache, and really should be rephrased to this: > It's actually pretty narrow. If you have received sufficient notice that you are no longer allowed to access a resource, then you can't access the resource.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's the coming in after being told not to that's illegal. The fake moustache is just an instrumentality.
  - cma 13y ago
    So you're saying google could send a cease and desist to all microsoft employees and keep them off of google.com? Isn't the ruling considering automated scraping in some way different from normal browsing?
    - lelandbatey 13y ago
      Yes, Google could in fact do that. It would be impossible to actually enforce, but they could absolutely do it. They don't have any reason to, so they don't, but they could.
  - qq66 13y ago
    > Having a website is not at all like 'shouting on a public square' and is exactly like having a bar open to the public. It's hilarious that you would claim that one strained meatspace analogy is completely wrong, and your other strained meatspace analogy is completely right. This is why laws in one context should not be mapped by analogy over to another context; they should be derived from the fundamental moral principle that the original law codified.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      Not that hilarious really. You can have a web site and prevent certain people from entering. You can have a bar and prevent certain people from entering. You can not shout on a public square and prevent certain people from listening.
      - qq66 13y ago
        You can have a cardboard box and prevent people from entering. Therefore a website is like a cardboard box. You can have a moon colony and prevent people from entering. Thus a website is like a moon colony.
        jack-r-abbit 13y ago
        Sure... in terms of whether you can control access to it... which is what we're talking about. As opposed to trying to control access to what you are shouting on a public square.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    Of course I don't support a crawler who steals content, it's immoral and should be punished by law and community. But the way they approached this in court, is overly dangerous and sets a precedent (for the anglosaxon law system) which could be very dangerous. It's way to broad. An open bar to the public? At a bar you have a degree of physical contact which conveys info you can not have via internet, that's why the 'square' example fits better (imho). But example apart, I'm with you on this: the court case sets a dangerous precedent.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  That's idiotic, it's just another case where the judge is 20 years behind current affairs, he is judging something he clearly doesn't understand. I'm so tired of hearing this from hackers who have never taken a law class or picked up a book. Many hackers are abysmally ignorant of the law, and not all that good at critical thinking either. Some of those won't even listen to an explanation of how it does work, but double down on their ignorance and throw a tantrum instead.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Don't mistake disagreement for ignorance.

atmosx 13y ago

That's a bit naive: If that's the case, then you need to put a user/password. Having a website on the internet is like shouting on a public square: it's main function is to be accessible world-wide (or internet-wide). So if you "shout" on a public square (blog, post, etc.) you can't tell which group of people can and can not hear what you say. The bar example would be fit for websites that raise paywalls, or some sort of access control. That's idiotic, it's just another case where the judge is 20 years behind current affairs, he is judging something he clearly doesn't understand.

processcontrol 13y ago
Having a website is not at all like 'shouting on a public square' and is exactly like having a bar open to the public. Craigslist told a patron they couldn't come in any more. The patron put on a fake mustache and tried to come in the back door. Would you support someone scraping a blog to repost it elsewhere? Do you support crawlers that don't respect robots.txt? I don't see a problem with Craigslist saying 'No, you can't scrape our users content to post on your website'. The exact details of which laws and how the court case went may not be correct, but at a theoretical level the website as open-to-public bar/store/etc is a perfectly valid analogy.
- sejje 13y ago
  And what makes it hilarious is that the fake moustache is seemingly illegal.
  - Helianthus 13y ago
    That's where I get hesitant; I'm on Craigslist's side and fully agree with the bar analogy, but this legal precedent could easily get misused. Fake mustaches for everyone!
    - mbreese 13y ago
      > this legal precedent could easily get misused It's actually pretty narrow. If you have received sufficient notice that you are no longer allowed to access a resource (in this case, the cease and desist letter), then you can't use technical measures to mask who you are and try to access the resource.
      - sejje 13y ago
        What you said is unrelated to the mustache, and really should be rephrased to this: > It's actually pretty narrow. If you have received sufficient notice that you are no longer allowed to access a resource, then you can't access the resource.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's the coming in after being told not to that's illegal. The fake moustache is just an instrumentality.
- cma 13y ago
  So you're saying google could send a cease and desist to all microsoft employees and keep them off of google.com? Isn't the ruling considering automated scraping in some way different from normal browsing?
  - lelandbatey 13y ago
    Yes, Google could in fact do that. It would be impossible to actually enforce, but they could absolutely do it. They don't have any reason to, so they don't, but they could.
- qq66 13y ago
  > Having a website is not at all like 'shouting on a public square' and is exactly like having a bar open to the public. It's hilarious that you would claim that one strained meatspace analogy is completely wrong, and your other strained meatspace analogy is completely right. This is why laws in one context should not be mapped by analogy over to another context; they should be derived from the fundamental moral principle that the original law codified.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Not that hilarious really. You can have a web site and prevent certain people from entering. You can have a bar and prevent certain people from entering. You can not shout on a public square and prevent certain people from listening.
    - qq66 13y ago
      You can have a cardboard box and prevent people from entering. Therefore a website is like a cardboard box. You can have a moon colony and prevent people from entering. Thus a website is like a moon colony.
      - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
        Sure... in terms of whether you can control access to it... which is what we're talking about. As opposed to trying to control access to what you are shouting on a public square.
- atmosx 13y ago
  Of course I don't support a crawler who steals content, it's immoral and should be punished by law and community. But the way they approached this in court, is overly dangerous and sets a precedent (for the anglosaxon law system) which could be very dangerous. It's way to broad. An open bar to the public? At a bar you have a degree of physical contact which conveys info you can not have via internet, that's why the 'square' example fits better (imho). But example apart, I'm with you on this: the court case sets a dangerous precedent.
anigbrowl 13y ago
That's idiotic, it's just another case where the judge is 20 years behind current affairs, he is judging something he clearly doesn't understand. I'm so tired of hearing this from hackers who have never taken a law class or picked up a book. Many hackers are abysmally ignorant of the law, and not all that good at critical thinking either. Some of those won't even listen to an explanation of how it does work, but double down on their ignorance and throw a tantrum instead.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Don't mistake disagreement for ignorance.