in reply to legality of extracting content from websites

There are already several programs out there that retrieve the body of the e-mail (and some can reply, etc.), and they don't appear to have been sued out of existence. Looks like you have your answer.
  • Comment on Re: legality of extracting content from websites

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: legality of extracting content from websites
by thewalledcity (Friar) on Jul 15, 2003 at 14:21 UTC
    Just because they have not been sued yet, doesn't make the programs illegal. To draw an analogy: If I don't get caught knocking over the liqour store does that make it legal? No.
      That's quite a stretch ... going from web scraping email contents to holding up cash registers. How about the analogy of not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign instead? Regardless of how you like your analogies, if the scraper uses the public interface provided by said provider, then how can it be illegal? Whether you use that interface through a browser or a web bot shouldn't matter as long as that interface is publically available. I can use the front door to a public library if the library is open. Can i not also teleport into the library lobby as long as it is open to the public? What? You can't teleport? ;)

      jeffa

      *BAMF*
        They could simply have a clause in their TOS that says you must use the web based interface. Its not that uncommon.
      Perhaps you missed the part of the question that asked if Yahoo would get upset. They do not seem to have gotten upset, and there are many of these out there on freshmeat.net. For the truly curious, a few e-mails to the authors of these tools would probably be a good next step, asking if they have encountered any problems.

      Perhaps we're confusing the terms "illegal" and "according to the terms of service", which correspond to "criminal" (penal code) and "civil" law. If you hold up a store, it is illegal because there are laws against armed robbery---a criminal case. If you break the terms of a contract, it is not illegal (eq not a criminal case). Your contract partner can take you to court to enforce the terms of the contract, but it is a civil case, not a criminal one, hence not illegal.

      --
      Allolex

        We are into "How lawyers get rich". If a service is provided with a set of terms for use. Should we live/work/play by the meaning/spirit of the agreement, or live by the loopholes. (e.g. people, religion, holy book - can a person obey the EXACT terms of a holy book, be a religious member in good standing, and still be eligable for the afterlife that has no joy?)

        Another example. What happens to Perl Monks if every user stretches every rule to just short of the breaking point, then cries "but your rules don't say I can't!". (Don't go there I have 2 teenage boys who have discovered that "go to bed" includes more than getting under the covers. We had a session where I was VERY explicit, quiet but explicit. The next night I offered them the choice of "go to bed" in the spirit it was intended, or we could use the 23 minute version again. They took the short version.

        Can we write laws to be totaly unambuous? If we do, do you want to live here?

        Food for thought
        John