Normal People falling for a Website's ToS?

[Capo Dei Capi]

What is it with normal people(non IM'rs) claiming that a ToS is valid and that a ToS can make a website have copyright over certain materials. I'm on a website and all these guys are attacking me for exposing that a ToS does not give a website copyright ownership.


Some Americans tried to get me to believe that a ToS is valid even when a court doesn't consider them valid.

We've all signed countless Terms of Service agreements without reading them closely and most people don't bother to make a note of what they're agreeing to. A decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals suggests breaking those terms isn't a crime you can be prosecuted for.

http://lifehacker.com/5901773/breaking-a-terms-of-service-isnt-necessarily-a-crime

 

[cottonwolf]

People have a dual relationship with terms of service, copyrights and all rights reserved crap on websites. On one hand, they're supposed to support and defend you, as the website owner, on the other hand website owners go nuts beyond the wildest dreams you can dreams of to pursue their stupid policies on their sites. On the third hand, it tries to be fair the users of the websites.

I think most of the times, this picture explains what happens:

Then people happily carry on with their scraping, usage and business:

And again tomorrow, the day after and on and on:

Then after a few bad hiccups, they've got to deal with it:

Anyway, terms of service can be drawn up rather arbitrariliy, and I sometimes wish big companies with their DOs and DONTs can go F themselves

 

[Gogol]

This is interesting. The most two hilarious phrases I find in many website ToSs are 1. "including, but not limited to" and 2. "you agree that we may change our TOS in order to f**k you".

Anyway, I do not think breaking TOS is a criminal offense, but that's only my judgement . Waiting for the knowledgeable ones to chime in and shed some light on this.

 

[Trepanated]

Breaking a ToS agreement is not against the law. ToS are a civil contract/agreement between two parties.

If someone breaches the agreement, the other party is entitled to take legal action and the outcome would be dependant on whatever the laws are that govern the contract. Once a legal judgement is made though, if someone doesn't then comply with the judgement, they are likely to be breaking the law.

It's the same with breach of contract - that's not illegal either.

They are both civil matters.

Having said that, just because it's not illegal to breach a contract or break a ToS, that does not mean the other party cannot use the law to enforce the contract or remedy the breach.

 

[xtopzi]

Breaking a ToS agreement is not against the law. ToS are a civil contract/agreement between two parties.

Well that's debatable, it's what they pinned on Aaron Swartz wasn't it. From Wikipedia:

The government was able to bring such disproportionate charges against Aaron because of the broad scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the wire fraud statute. It looks like the government used the vague wording of those laws to claim that violating an online service's user agreement or terms of service is a violation of the CFAA and the wire fraud statute.

Using the law in this way could criminalize many everyday activities and allow for outlandishly severe penalties.

When our laws need to be modified, Congress has a responsibility to act. A simple way to correct this dangerous legal interpretation is to change the CFAA and the wire fraud statutes to exclude terms of service violations. I will introduce a bill that does exactly that.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Jan 15, 2013

As of May 2014, Aaron's Law was stalled in committee, reportedly due to tech company Oracle's financial interests.[SUP][/SUP]

So...as far as I can see, in the United States, you can still be charged with wire fraud and spend half your life in prison for it. No?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#Aaron_Swartz

 

[BassTrackerBoats]

Well that's debatable, it's what they pinned on Aaron Swartz wasn't it. From Wikipedia:

So...as far as I can see, in the United States, you can still be charged with wire fraud and spend half your life in prison for it. No?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#Aaron_Swartz

That is a sad story about Aaron Swartz; there is a video out that shares a part of his life that relates to this situation. He was not charged with a TOS violation but rather stealing information and breaking and entering.

He accessed other computers without permission and downloaded (stole) content from them from what I remember which got him some kind of Federal Charges.

Really sad as he was a bright mind and seemed like a pretty good guy that ended up committing suicide over that whole mess.

Had nothing to do with any website Terms of Service though.

 

[xtopzi]

That is a sad story about Aaron Swartz; there is a video out that shares a part of his life that relates to this situation. He was not charged with a TOS violation but rather stealing information and breaking and entering.

He accessed other computers without permission and downloaded (stole) content from them from what I remember which got him some kind of Federal Charges.

Really sad as he was a bright mind and seemed like a pretty good guy that ended up committing suicide over that whole mess.

Had nothing to do with any website Terms of Service though.

I also saw a documentary about him on Youtube which is where I learnt about those charges.

On July 11, 2011, Swartz was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer.

Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,

You're refering to the "computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer" whereas he was also charged with those ridiculous wire fraud and computer fraud charges, hence the Aaron's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron's_Law


The prosecution wanted to add much heavier charges on top of it (the 11 wire fraud / computer fraud act violations) and were able to do so because of the outdated laws that allow it. See quote from my previous reply.

 

[BassTrackerBoats]

You're refering to the "computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer" whereas he was also charged with those ridiculous wire fraud and computer fraud charges, hence the Aaron's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron's_Law

Yes, that is it; that was not a TOS violation he was prosecuted for although I am sure it is against the TOS of the site where he got the info.

I'm not commenting on the right or wrong of the whole situation but rather just saying he did not get charged for crimes as a TOS violation since that is a civil thing as shared above by Trepanated.

 

[xtopzi]

Yes, that is it; that was not a TOS violation he was prosecuted for although I am sure it is against the TOS of the site where he got the info.

I'm not commenting on the right or wrong of the whole situation but rather just saying he did not get charged for crimes as a TOS violation since that is a civil thing as shared above by Trepanated.

I'm not saying you're wrong but why would it be called Aaron's Law that's looking to change the outdated wire fraud act that has a very vague interpretation, allowing prosecutors to pin "breaking TOS" on a user?

Vagueness is the core flaw of the CFAA. As written, the CFAA makes it a federal crime to access a computer without authorization or in a way that exceeds authorization. Confused by that? You're not alone. Congress never clearly described what this really means. As a result, prosecutors can take the view that a person who violates a website's terms of service or employer agreement should face jail time.

So lying about one's age on Facebook, or checking personal email on a work computer, could violate this felony statute. This flaw in the CFAA allows the government to imprison Americans for a violation of a non-negotiable, private agreement that is dictated by a corporation. Millions of Americans — whether they are of a digitally native or dial-up generation — routinely submit to legal terms and agreements every day when they use the Internet. Few have the time or the ability to read and completely understand lengthy legal agreements.

http://www.wired.com/2013/06/aarons-law-is-finally-here/

What Aaron's Law wants to change to the CFAA:

Establish that mere breach of terms of service, employment agreements, or contracts are not automatic violations of the CFAA. By using legislative language based closely on recent important 9th and 4th Circuit Court opinions, Aaron's Law would instead define ‘access without authorization' under the CFAA as gaining unauthorized access to information by circumventing technological or physical controls — such as password requirements, encryption, or locked office doors. Notwithstanding this change, hack attacks such as phishing, injection of malware or keystroke loggers, denial-of-service attacks, and viruses would continue to be fully prosecutable under strong CFAA provisions that Aaron's Law does not modify.

In other words: currently, the CFAA can be violated by using a website not in accordance to the ToS. Aaron's Law wants to re-define that to a more clear 'mallicious' use like hacking. So from what I get from it, under current law you may violate the CFAA by breaking the ToS (see Wired.com link).

 

[BassTrackerBoats]

I'm not saying you're wrong but why would it be called Aaron's Law that's looking to change the outdated wire fraud act that has a very vague interpretation, allowing prosecutors to pin "breaking TOS" on a user?

http://www.wired.com/2013/06/aarons-law-is-finally-here/

I don't know enough about the whole situation and I've never read the law so I could not possibly give an intelligent informed response there and I'm not going to speculate on whether the law is good, bad or a contrived effort to hurt one particular person.

 

[xtopzi]

Accidental double post. Hope I'm not breaking the ToS here

 

[IMpossible]

The best way to make them read and accept the ToS is to show it to them BEFORE they engage with your content.

 

[archon10]

lol you have to remember that writing something down and making people sign it doesn't mean you can write anything and it's legal. For instance, I can't tell my grocery store clerk that I'm robbing his store but I'm not responsible for anything and he can't sue me. Same with a ToS. You can put whatever you want in a ToS but it doesn't mean it's enforceable.

 

[IMpossible]

lol you have to remember that writing something down and making people sign it doesn't mean you can write anything and it's legal. For instance, I can't tell my grocery store clerk that I'm robbing his store but I'm not responsible for anything and he can't sue me. Same with a ToS. You can put whatever you want in a ToS but it doesn't mean it's enforceable.

Do you even know what a ToS is?

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

One guy even ratted me out just for talking about a ToS not being valid and got me banned from a website. Luckily the people that run said website are freaking retards and a ban is super easy to evade.

 

[archon10]

Bans are always easy to evade. Which forum were you on? I want to create a troll account.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

Bans are always easy to evade. Which forum were you on? I want to create a troll account.

It wasn't a forum it was another kind of website.

 

[archon10]

well bummer
I was going to make the name with ToS in it and have some fun with them.

oh well...

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

Now thinking of it, its kind of a captain obvious thing to say "That bans are easy to evade". A professional site is in the business of making money which means they can't really care about banned members returning as long as they don't cause trouble anymore or they have done something pretty major against a website in the past such as fraud.

I just find it funny that so many people beleive that if a website states that "All content on sitename is copyrighted of sitename" That the website actually owns the copyright even though the website is not actually producing the content. Even copyright isn't as powerful and allreaching as what some people claim, the people that reported me also said I was scum for speaking the truth on copyright laws.