Slashdot Mirror
Site Says 'Go Away!'; Federal Court Says No
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."
It leaves them exactly where they were: Here.
Reread the parent post - they sued under the SCA, not contract law. Any precedent and case law applies only to the provisions of law invoked by the plaintiff.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
The SCA is a federal statute, passed by Congress & signed by the President. It applies only when the conditions specifically described in the statute are met. In this case, those conditions are access of stored communications "without authorization". The text of the statute also contains an exception, which says that even if stored communications were accessed w/o authorization, the statute does not apply if those communications are "readily acessible to the general public." According to the Eleventh Circuit, merely requiring the user to click a button saying they agree that they are not something does not prevent a site from being "readily accessible to the general public." Contract law is hundreds of years old, based on the English common law, and modified somewhat by state legislatures. Under the common law of contracts, there are three elements to a contract: 1) An offer 2) An acceptance 3) Consideration (meaning that both parties agree to give something up) Because contract law is governed by state law, it is rarely raised in federal courts, such as the Eleventh Circuit (there are exceptions, under something called "diversity jurisdiction" or "supplimental jurisdiction" but I imagine the readers of Slashdot don't want me to give them an entire semester's worth of Civil Procedure). When a contract claim is raised in the proper court, however, a contract will generally be deemed to exist if the three elements mentioned above exist.
"It seems more and more like we have a double standard when it comes to "computer trespass" laws."
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.
evil is as evil does
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".
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
...the problem is Snow sued under the SCA rather than traditional contract theory. Of course, they violated their "contract" -- so the court would award him WHAT at best? An injunction? Because he couldn't have set up an IP blacklist to get that already? Seriously, the difference here is between contract law and a form of "public access" (public accomodations) law. If you are a private club with no serious barriers to entry, you cannot claim to be a private club, Clover Hill Swimming Club v Goldsboro, 219 A2d 161 (1966).
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
The crucial difference being that race is a protected class in anti-discrimination legislation, while employer is not.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Step-Saver and Gateway hold otherwise. You can't EULA around the warantee of merchantability (or fitness for purpose) but otherwise, you're golden. I'm sure Todd Rakoff would agree with you, but not everyone else would. (In Easterbrook's court, you'd be laughed at....) Modern contracts doctrine has done away with many instances of consideration, one of the few places where it is required is to form binding (i.e. non-revocable) option contracts. There are plenty of places where "consideration" isn't really needed.... [Unilateral contracts, promissory estoppel, the UCC....]
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
See Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code, particularly Sec. 9.42, "Deadly Force to Protect Property" pdf
Trespassing isn't enough to justify deadly force, but it's easy to see how those stories get started.
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.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.