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* | [reply] |
They could simply have a clause in their TOS that says you must use the web based interface. Its not that uncommon.
| [reply] |
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. | [reply] |
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
| [reply] |
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
| [reply] |
Hmm. Since your post was a reply to my node about the difference between something that is illegal and something that violates a contract, I'm left to guess you are reading a little to much in between the lines. :)
Aside from that, I would agree with the idea that people should stick to the spirit of their agreements.
As to the question of whether we can have laws that are totally unambiguous, the answer is a definite maybe. The reason lawyers have to study so long is due in part to the need for them to learn legal English. In legal English, many words have slightly more restricted meanings than the way we use them in a day-to-day basis. And while everyday language is evolving, the legal language is much more static. But even carefully-worded documents like the US constitution are subject to this change because through time, its interpreters become less and less capable of understanding the possible nuances of the original document. Even when time does not confuse the issue, there is a huge difference between how a legal expert might interpret something and the way a layperson like myself would. (Also remember that a lot of politicians have no legal training, either.)
And total unambiguity is a very desireable thing---a utopia, in fact. It's not happening any time soon, but yes, I would gladly live in a world where laws were completely unambiguous. At the very least, it would keep politicians very busy fixing outdated laws and at the very best, it would eliminate injustice, assuming the lawmakers are democratic and believe in minority rights. :)
--
Allolex
| [reply] |