2 ms·

> I think there's an implicit contract. And I do not. Do you feel that cURLing a URL violates this implicit contract? > Would you feel any different about it

• kbenson 11y ago
  > And I do not. Do you feel that cURLing a URL violates this implicit contract? Depending on the site, yes. > It depends on what this "preamble" is. If it's just text at the top of the page saying "the reader hereby agrees to also view the ads on this page," then no, I don't consider that an explicit contract. How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet beforehand? Is it any different if it's a sign that says it instead of a person? In both cases, I view taking the book while not reading the pamphlet stealing. You were only granted a copy of the book if you performed an action, and in both cases you failed to carry out the action, so a book was not granted. Thus the taking of the book was stealing. > I don't think intent is relevant in this case, because I do not believe there is anything resembling a contract. And that is the fundamental difference in our points of view. I believe there is an expectation on the part of the content providers for what they are providing, and as long as the consumer understands this expectation and purposefully ignores it, they are acting dishonestly.
  • baddox 11y ago
    > How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet beforehand? Because order is important. On the web, you ask a server for something and it gives it to you. If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract. And, of course, physical books are scarce, but that's another issue. > I believe there is an expectation on the part of the content providers for what they are providing I don't dispute that there is an expectation on the part of the content providers. I just don't think that an expectation is the same thing as a contract. I use the word "contract" to refer to an actual agreement between parties. If only one party is aware of and consenting to the terms, it is not a contract.
    • kbenson 11y ago
      > If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract. I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book. > I just don't think that an expectation is the same thing as a contract. I use the word "contract" to refer to an actual agreement between parties. If only one party is aware of and consenting to the terms, it is not a contract. I think this is relevant[1]. I think it's a stretch to say only one party is aware and consenting. Why is this content being provided? To assume it's freely available without any cost is a very self-serving view. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract
      • baddox 11y ago
        > I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book. Do you genuinely believe that I would be obligated to return or dispose of the book in this scenario? If so, then I applaud you for consistency, and I can only say that I find that belief very bizarre. > I think it's a stretch to say only one party is aware and consenting. Well, I'm explicitly telling you that I don't consent, so unless I'm lying, it's pretty clear that I do not consent.