Terms and Conditions…My big hairy arse.
What ass-hat decided that simply making a statement to someone somehow holds them legally obliged to adhere to that statement?
Some people just don’t get it. Existing companies embraced the internet, especially the network created through the HTTP protocol known commonly as the world wide web, because of the ease and low cost by which they can communicate with current and potential customers. Many others started entirely new businesses based upon the same nearly free network infrastructure. Companies, governments, and individuals alike discovered that they now had the ability to publish content to a world-wide audience, and perhaps even convince some of them to pay for that content.
However, people seem to be operating under the misguided concept that they can publish content / information across a free and open network architecture all around the world and somehow hold those who would actually use that information to some sort of legally binding requirements in regard to how, when, and where they access that information. Now, primarily, I’m speaking of content which is provided free of charge or ad supported to anonymous users. Certainly, once money changes hands, there can be considered a legal contract that has been entered into in regard to what product or service is being provided at what cost. However, in the anonymous or even semi-anonymous user case, simply posting a Terms and Conditions statement does not hold the user legally accountable to the terms of that condition. Firstly, there is no legal requirement that a web browser application function in any particular way. Although there are general “standards” (this term used very loosely) upon which all networking protocols work, there certainly is no legal requirement, for instance, that all web browsers honor every “standard” or convention.
A simple example is the “index.htm” page. General convention states that if there is no specific file included in the Uniform Resource Locator (or URL), that the web server should assume that there will always be present an “index.htm” and web designers should use that page to guarantee that users do not get HTTP404 Errors (page not found). This does not mean that every HTTP Server is legally required to honor this convention. In fact, Microsoft’s IIS actually assumes a default page of “default.asp” or “default.htm”. The same analogy transfers directly to web browsers, or HTTP Clients. Although, there are conventions and “standards” by which client and servers “should” observe to ensure a consistent user experience, there is no legal requirement that they do so. There is no international entity that reviews the functionality of every web browser and approves them based upon their rendering of HTML content. In fact, most browsers actually have to make assumptions about the author’s intent and display HTML elements in the way that it deems to be the most accurate because of the vast amount of poorly formed HTML on the internet. Likewise, no company, individual, or loosely organized group can be held legally liable for any shortcomings in the web browser (HTTP client) that they produce. How would that affect text-only web browsers or special browsers intended for use by disabled persons?
With that in mind, there is no legal reason that a web browser can not completely bypass or fail to implement the processing of any particular part of an HTML document that they choose to ignore. This, without a doubt, means that a publisher of content can NOT guarantee or control how the end user of a document that is published on the internet actually experiences that document or its elements. There is NO WAY that a user can be assumed to have even seen, never mind actually have agreed to, any such ridiculous Terms of Service agreements that a publish decides to make available on their web server. This includes such TOS statements which exclude “screen scraping” techniques. Because, at its simplest, “screen scraping” is simply very poor rendering.
BTW: This goes TRIPLE for those ridiculous statements included at the bottom of email messages. Who are these people kidding? If I send a letter to a stranger, and at the bottom include a phrase which states that by reading this document they agree to send me a check for $100, I better not be planning on retiring early with the flood of funds that will come in from such a scheme. This is no different than the ridiculous statements that some organizations seem to feel is necessary to include in all emails.
Instead of the threatening, non-binding, legal mumbo jumbo that people seem intent to use, I could accept an earnestly worded request that I be considerate to the producer of any content and not use it in certain ways. Because, in the end, that’s all the internet really is…an informal agreement that if information is provided in a particular way, that the creator of that information intended it to be displayed in a specific manner. There IS NO requirement to honor that intent. There is, however, usually a good faith effort to honor that intent. That’s what makes the incredible amount of freely available information possible.
In short, don’t threaten me. Don’t try to insinuate that by accessing the data which you have made publicly available on the internet that I am in some way agreeing to some contract.
To those people…bite me!
