Site Says 'Go Away!'; Federal Court Says No 546
CaptainEbo writes "Michael Snow was the webmaster of Stop Corporate Extortion, a private support group website for 'individuals who have been, are being, or will be sued by any Corporate entity.' In order to access his site, users were required to register a username and password, and agree to a statement saying they were not associated with DirecTV, Inc. Several defendants in suits brought by DirecTV would discuss their cases on Snow's site. When DirecTV's employees and lawyers ignored Snow's user agreement and accessed his site anyway, Snow sued, claiming they violated the Stored Communications Act (SCA) by accessing his site without authorization. In an unanimous opinion, the Eleventh Circuit rejected Snow's suit."
ohhh ... EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Insightful)
It would appear they aren't worth the electrons required to display them.
No. That's not how the system works. (Score:4, Insightful)
This was a private person working against corporations, and it was shot down. When the corporations with their army of lawyers and legal fud wants to persuit this against people, expect it to be fully enforcable. They will have no problems what so ever.
Ok, so I don't know that, but I'm pretty sure that's how it will turn out.
Re:No. That's not how the system works. (Score:4, Insightful)
We probably need laws that allow for X times damages and expenses when an individual or company has X times the financial / legal resources of the opponent and loses. It would encourage much more pro-bono activity and more corporate responsibility. Not even 100% of the "extra" penalty needs to go to the winner - some could be used to offset the court costs / infrastructure that we taxpayers pay for.
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Insightful)
Either this ruling or EULAs will be overturned. Anything else is a double standard.
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:4, Informative)
Of course there is consideration in EULAs. It doesn't take a hell of a lot for there to be consideration (think of the $1 contracts that are upheld). The money you pay is your consideration. The software (or access rights thereto) they provide is theirs. All it means is giving up something (ANYTHING!) you din't have to give up.
"Consideration" does not mean "carefully considered all the ramifications" which might be what you be getting at. I.e. a policy consideration that the parties to a EULA are so unequal in bargaining power that enforcnig the contract "offends the conscience".
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
In the case of boxed software the consideration is made to the retailer for a piece of physical property, not to the rights holder for the license.
And a license is not a contract. A license is a grant of limited rights. A license may be a valid license without being a contract at all, as most commercial EULAs are not.
They are often worded in doublespeak as if they were asking you to give something up, such as saying that you cannot copy the program to more than one computer, but this is actually a grant to copy to one computer. You are not giving up the right to copy to more than one computer because you never had that right in the first place.
EULAs are very carefully worded to give the impression that they are contracts without ever actually including any legally enforceable (certain commercial obligations of the licensee and rights held by the licensor cannot be altered by contract, they are a matter of law) contractual terms.
The GPL, oddly enough, is both a valid license and a contract, because it fully spells out the articles of consideration by both parties, the permanent assignment of what would otherwise be exlusive rights of distribution.
KFG
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, after both the buyer and the seller have accepted and fullfilled the conditions in the implicitly purchase contract, the buyer is presented with what can be described as an unilateral contract change (in the form of the EULA) which the buyer has to accept in order to be able to exercise the rights he/s
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Informative)
"How about if you pirate software" - then there are penalties under copyright law. Irrespective of the EULA.
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Interesting)
Ask any spammer that pays for bulk lists containing these items.
Although, on it's own, it is of negligible value, it is still a quantifiable amount with real market value, thus, a consideration.
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Funny)
But I could be wrong. I'm not a native speaker of 1337 or any other h4x0r-related dialect.
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:2)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:2)
Doesn't this strike a serious blow to the validity of "click to accept" EULAs?
Exactly the same as before... (Score:5, Insightful)
And no, I'm not intentionally being cynical... I'm just simply being observant of the way things really work.
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words:
If you give unrestricted, unscreened access to 99.99999% of the public, you can't discriminate against the remaining 0.00001%.
It's a pretty sensible ruling. Anything that is "Open to the Public" has to play by different rules.
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:2, Funny)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
"While the court did not explain just what sort of security measures would invoke the SCA, it did hint that a webmaster who "screens the registrants before granting access" would have a stronger claim than one who merely asks his registrants to "self screen"
Imagine having a bar with a sign out front saying "if you are under the legal age you cannot purchase alcohol here. By entering you are agreeing you are of legal age". You can't just sell alcohol to anyone entering because they agreed they were old enough.
You need to "screen of registrants" or patrons in this case.
At the same time the "underage" drinkers will be charged and deemed responsible for their actions (even though the bar may be charged or lose their license as well).
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean like how they do it at frat parties with a couple of signs thrown up by the bar saying you must be 21 to consume alcohol? Of course that is equally ineffectual...
I can also think of examples where a posting is intended to be read. Areas wit
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, FYI: In states where intent to disposess is required in adverse posession (subjective test states), the PRESENCE of a "no trespassing sign" will allow the adverse posessor to sustain his claim of open, notorious and HOSTILE as a result of the sign. (Whereas without a no trespassing sign, in the same jurisdiction, the claim for quiet title would have failed.)
Your analogy has absolutely nothing at all to do with the 11th circuit's holding.
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:2)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Informative)
Trespassing isn't enough to justify deadly force, but it's easy to see how those stories get started.
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:2, Flamebait)
Seriously, the number of non-lawyers sounding off in the last three days has gotten on my nerves; there's a lot of misinformation on slashdot (surprise surprise) but it always seems to be worse when it involves the law...
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:2)
Mm. As it happens, I recall another case with similar facts, involving a primary school student who created a website. The screen failed there too.
Seriously, the number of non-lawyers sounding off in the last three days has gotten on my nerves; there's a lot of misinformation on slashdot (surprise surprise) but it always seems to be worse when it involves the law...
I hear you. Practically all I ever
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:2)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. You have multiple reflexes to prevent you from ingesting boiling or near-boiling materials. 180-degree coffee would hardly get past the lips, much less down the throat.
When you put your hand in a fire, do you CONSCIOUSLY pull it away or is it an automatic reflex? On the contrary, it requires severe conscious control to KEEP the hand near the heat even if you wanted to.
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing ab
Re:Not a coffee drinker, are you? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you'd like, I will pull the opinion off Lexis-Nexis and send it to you. Does this change your opinion at all?
Key Excerpts:
Re:Not a coffee drinker, are you? (Score:4, Informative)
I've heard that coffee begins to deteriorate after more than 15 minutes and that it is best served immediately after brewing at close to 200 degrees F. I'm not sure how anyone knows this, though, since it must be difficult to determine the flavor with your tastebuds burned off. In fact, I've burned my tongue numerous times using your ingenious sip test to check the temperature of my coffee.
Re:ohhh ... EULA (Score:3, Interesting)
DirectTV employees misrepresented themselves when registering for an account. Is this acceptible?
What if I apply for a credit card and claim that I make $200,000 per year, when really I'm
This is a blatant double standard (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a double standard. (Score:5, Insightful)
This man's first offense was not being a corporation. His second was daring to question the actions of corporations.
The standards are quite clearly set. Individuals are not allowed to take a stance against corporations or their actions. Corporate greed trumps all. It's very evident how the system works.
Re:It's not a double standard. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a double standard. (Score:3, Funny)
Apropos, American Standard is also a popular brand of toilet. So no matter which you're talking about, it's all shit.
Thank you, here all week, tip your waitress, try the veal, etc.
Re:This is a blatant double standard (Score:2)
Re:This is a blatant double standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a blatant double standard (Score:4, Insightful)
In order to access Snow's site, a user was required to register a username and password, and to agree to a statement affirming that the user was not associated with DirecTV, inc
So, in order to access the site, you had to register. If asking the user is not considered 'no effective meaure' what the hell is? Does this mean we can all ignore EULA's too, since the companies are taking 'no effective measures' besides an 'I agree' button? I mean, seriously, this sort of logic will certainly make a lot of things easier to handle:
'Yes, I know I signed the contract with a false name, but what measures did the other party really take to keep me honest? If they're relying on me not lying, it's clearly their own fault they got burnt.'
"Your honour, I know the defendant asked me to stop punching him, but he didn't take any effective counter-measures so I figured it was really alright to continue "
Re:This is a blatant double standard (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is a blatant double standard (Score:5, Interesting)
For what it's worth, I agree with the court's ruling. What I don't agree with is the tendency for people, companies, government agencies, police, and yes, occasionally the courts, to presume that citizens need permission for everything that they do. If it doesn't violate a law, we don't need permission.
Re:This is a blatant double standard (Score:2)
Re:This is a blatant double standard (Score:2)
Re:This is a blatant double standard (Score:4, Interesting)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/10/1
'My intention was never to disrupt security. The fact that I logged on and there were no passwords means that there was no security,' McKinnon said, outside the hearing at London's Bow Street Magistrates Court.
Who faces 5 years and $250k in fines.
Reading that thread, there is a general consensus that McKinnon deserved it - the ease of entry didn't matter, so long as he was aware that he was tresspassing.
Re:This is a blatant double standard (Score:4, Informative)
It's not limited to computer trespass and it's not "more and more". We have always had two different legal systems in the US. One for the rich, one for everybody else.
American legal system is the best legal system money can buy.
"readily accessible to the general public", eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously though, this seems so vaguely worded that I think it's almost useless as a precedent. "Readily accessible" is pretty subjective to a given individuals knowledge (I happen to find whois queries readily accessib
But that's just not feasible... (Score:2, Informative)
What makes something readily accessible to the general public? According to the article they didn't even give an example (apart from that "hint" which I just went over). That is just way too vague.
Re:But that's just not feasible... (Score:2)
Re:But that's just not feasible... (Score:3, Funny)
Hey... I think you might be onto something.
Re:But that's just not feasible... (Score:3, Funny)
[Website] In order to access this site, you need to send an essay describing the importance of "Business Ethics" (see: Billy Madison).
[Corporate Lawyers] Ugh! Argh! I can't do it!
That'd trip 'em up for sure.
Trespassing (Score:4, Insightful)
On Snow's site, any member of the general public could access the site by merely registering with a username and password and clicking on the words "I Agree to these terms." Such an easily surmountable barrier to access is, according to the court, insufficient to make a site not "readily acessible to the general public."
If I own some land, and don't want people trespassing to pick berries but have no problem with them hiking across it, I can put up signs to that effect. If they come to pick berries, I can kick them out for trespassing. Were online standards applied to this law, even putting up a short fence wouldn't be sufficient to allow me to enforce my signs; I'd need 15-foot concrete barriers and hired guides to chaperone all visitors.
Re:Trespassing (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I'd like to know where that leaves sites that require you be over 18 to enter. Obviously it is not enough to click on "yes, I'm over 18".
Even more interesting, where does it leave
Re:Trespassing (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets all call Microsoft for compensation the next time our friend's computer breaks because of Microsoft software and see if we can use this judge's decision.
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in several countries you couldn't even do that. In Finland, wherever you erect a house is considered completely private property, but if you own forest beyond your back yard, you can't prevent people from using it.
They can't, of course, start cutting down trees or breaking things, but you're not allowed to prevent them from doing reasonable things such as traversing it or picking berries/mushrooms.
This makes perfect sense, as the only other alternative would be for the government to own all forests, to prevent crazy landowners from destroying everyone else's enjoyment. Imagine if you had to pick berries with a GPS locator and a map of all local land borders.
In practice, it means you can't start posting stupid signs telling people what they're allowed to do. Just like that website couldn't...
Re:Trespassing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Trespassing (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless "the public" is helping me pay the bank loan I took out to buy the land, "the public" can kiss my butt. Alternatively, where do you park? I want to use your car, you selfish bastard.
Re:Are you Insane? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is at least 1 right, the owner has the right to build on that property, and no one else. But I don't see anywhere that has 100% ownership. Show me a place in the US (or anywhere else) where you can buy a piece of property and, excepting any other contracts, like using it as collateral for a loan, it is impossible for the government to take it back from you.
In the US, it can be taken for eminent domain, even if it is a private co
Re:Are you Insane? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but you see, in Scandinavia, you're not breaking the law because it's not illegal. I suspect that many Swedes would consider the American farmer to be an abject asshole for taking such great offense over something that does him no harm. (100% of the Swedes I've talked to about this thread would think that, but, given my sample size of 1, it's not all that statistically significant.)
I find it rather surprising t
Re:Trespassing (Score:2)
Great! (Score:2)
Ridiculous, what about corporate sites? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hah! Just kidding, I don't really expect the courts to go by morality or, god forbid, simple logic. All those little corporate trolls on here that seem to snipe at me from time to time, you may now go ahead and explain to me how judges and courts are somehow restricted by the nuance of law, and cannot find any way at all to rule in favor of ethical good.
Re:Ridiculous, what about corporate sites? (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, etc.
ASCBlog (Score:2)
Re:ASCBlog (Score:2)
Re:ASCBlog (Score:2)
Isn't that acronym wrong?
Shouldn't it be more like:
Supreme Court Of The United States of America?
Re:ASCBlog (Score:2)
Connecticut League In Times Of Rain, Ice & Snow.
Unfortunately, it was doomed before it began.
Freedom of association? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if you agree with the legality of civil rights laws, the employees of a particular company are not a protected group under that legislation.
Re:Freedom of association? (Score:3, Informative)
See e.g. Desnick v ABC 44 F.3d 1345; Food Lion v Capital Cities, 194 F3d 505, Clover Hill Swimming Club v Goldsboro, 219 A2d 161 (1966), Uston v Resorts Internation 445 A2d 370; Dale v BSA 734 A2d 1
dismissed with cause (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:dismissed with cause (Score:3, Insightful)
BugMeNot (Score:3, Funny)
bugmenot/bugmenot
Bad either way (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly if the ruling went the other way, I could see bad outcomes as well. Still Direct TV seems more than a little slimy in ignoring the request. Perhaps their anti-social behavior should be more widely disseminated -- say by some well read online community of some sort, perhaps one that provides news to the technically inclined or what the general public calls geeks.
No mention of contract (Score:4, Insightful)
woman's bathrooms (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:woman's bathrooms (Score:3, Informative)
Send it on up the line (Score:3, Interesting)
And if the Supremes uphold the 11th Circuit, then every SCA conviction so far should be overturned pronto!
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
The alternative to this decision... (Score:3, Interesting)
People, this is not a contract issue. If it were, he would probably have won.
He was trying to use the biggest weapon available and he screwed up, because he does not use anything to keep people out.
The court made the only interpretation of the statute that would be reasonable.
Re:The alternative to this decision... (Score:3, Informative)
There's both strategy and tactics in law, and in this case the two were mis-matched.
Are you 18 or older? Click (Yes) or (No) (Score:3, Interesting)
Some judges need a lesson on how internet works. Probably most judges think internet runs on some magnetic tapes and flashing light bulbs with occational "beep.. beep" noise.
pr0n for everyone!
Re:IP Ban (Score:2)
Re:IP Ban (Score:2)
I still think the court's ruling is questionable. If this were a corporate or government entity that through accident or carelessness had left a private site easily accessible to the public, I fully believe the courts would say something to the effect of "you should have known it was not p
Re:Frightening (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the closest physical analogue to this is a bunch of people having a conversation in a crowded restaurant becoming offended that they can be overheard at the adjacent table by the people they're talking about. You need a bit more than a promise that you're not the sort of person the site is trying to keep out to make a behin
Re:Frightening (Score:3, Insightful)
The closest physical manifestation of this situation is for a man to walk into a private meeting room such as a boardroom, then use the information he heard for personal gain.
Or someone wandering into a Lawyers office and listening in on a Lawyer-Client conversation and using that information against the client.
Its truly frightening that the US legal system supports such gross violation of privacy, so long as it is perpetrated by a company, not a person.
T
Re:Discrimination (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Discrimination (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes you could create such a website in the US and on what grounds could anyone sue you?
Private citizend engaging in discrimination is perfectly legal. Being an asshole is not a crime.
He should not be able to create a website saying no Direct TV personel and they have every right to counter-sue in my opinion.
I would respectfully submit that you have no fucking clue of what you're talking about. Under what law could t