> Why can't you use someone else's server under their (reasonable and clearly communicated) terms? Well, for one, clearly communicated to who, and when? Before

> Why can't you use someone else's server under their (reasonable and clearly communicated) terms? Well, for one, clearly communicated to who, and when? Before I ever receive the first request, I cannot a priori know of any terms. Even afterwards, you're assuming that a person has read and comprehended the information, which is often not true. I suppose you'd say that's alright, but that when or if the terms are even comprehended, from that point forward they should be obeyed. I would still disagree, however. The crucial difference from your bowl of candy is that sending an HTTP request is a kind of speech act. Having those kind of terms on a web site fundamentally violates my right to apply whichever voltages across wires I own. A better analogy would be a company that sets up an automated mail-receiving machine that automatically sends a piece of candy--along with a printed ad, let's say--back to the originator. It wouldn't be right for such a company to demand that I open their reply in a certain way--for example, by requiring that I look at the ad that came along with the candy--because at that point, the candy and ad are mine, and if I wish to construct a candy-extracting machine that prevents me from seeing the ads, then that's my right.