Slashdot Mirror
Twitch Brings CFAA and Trademark Claim Against Bot Operators (techdirt.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Techdirt: I think most people agree that bots that drive up viewer/follower counts on various social media systems are certainly a nuisance, but are they illegal? Amazon-owned Twitch has decided to find out. On Friday, the company filed a lawsuit against seven individuals/organizations that are in the business of selling bots. Twitch's lawsuit uses a CFAA claim and a trademark claim. The CFAA is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was put in place in the 1980s in response to the movie War Games and is supposed to be used to punish "hackers" who break into secure computer systems. Techdirt reports: "It's a pretty big stretch to argue that bots accessing your open website that anyone can visit requires some kind of specific "authorization." Yes, cheating bots are annoying. And yes, they can be seen as a problem. But that doesn't mean that Twitch should be trying to expand the definition of the CFAA to include accessing an open website in a way the site doesn't like. The trademark claim is also somewhat troubling, though not as much. No one is visiting the sites of these bot makers and assuming that they're endorsed by Twitch. I mean, they're all pretty clear that their entire purpose is to inflate viewers/followers on Twitch, which is clearly something that Twitch is against. Twitch doesn't need to use either of these claims, and it's disappointing that they and their lawyers have chosen to do so. This is not to say that bots and fake followers are okay. But these kinds of cases can set really bad precedents when a company like Twitch decides to over-claim things in a way that harms the wider tech and internet industry."
"Yes, cheating bots are annoying. And yes, they can be seen as a problem."
Can you write a worse, more confusing, AND grammatically incorrect summary?
sequence of button presses that triggered a bug has been used in under the CFAA.
Hell the cops can use the CFAA with speeding you where not authorized to go past that camera at faster then 55MPH so it's unauthorized access.
At first I assumed these were chatbots, but it sounds like the complaint is really about bots acting as fake viewers? If so, that does sound like conspiracy to commit fraud as opposed to something innocuous.
I know Slashdot isn't journalism, but that much subjective judgment of the situation doesn't belong in the story.
The modern app appers at Apptch only app APPS, not LUDDITE bots, so if these LUDDITES started using apps instead of LUDDITE bots, everything would be super appy!
Apps!
Viewbotting is a pretty clear and flagrant violation of terms of service.
Twitch is a private company and they set the terms their users are bound to. As long as those terms are legal, its their terms. The legal precedent is pretty clear too.
Furthermore there's a financial component as viewbots are used to attract viewers, which have a direct impact on the streamer's bottom line. While most viewbots claim not to impact ad revenue (They claim to block ads and not inflate ad view totals) they viewer numbers do impact what monitization options are available to streamers. This is akin to click fraud, and is clear and legal fraud.
Twitch can just add a no chat bot policy, and then claim right to seek damages of lost revenue and damaged reputation, etc if anyone ignores policy.
Blizzard used copyright against their botting nemesis. Twitch doesn't have copyright on the streams themselves (just a license). So they have to fall back to the CFAA -- a legal argument that has not yet been successfully prosecuted.
Cool story, gramps. Gonna go back to shaking your fist at clouds?
If someone wants to pretend to have friends/fans by spending money, why is that something we need to stop?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Pretending not to know what Twitch is will not win you the respect you crave.
CFAA(and the california specific variant) and trademark claims are only 3 of the 9 Claims cited. Fruad, Unfair Competition (X2), Breach of Contract, and Tortuitous Interference with contract, and anti-cyber-squating are also cited as claims.
Trademark violation? I don't think so. But "unauthorized access" in order to commit fraud? Is that not going with the "defrauding" comments above? Yeah, it is. I dunno about the CFAA, it's poorly worded. Maybe a bit of RICO and/or conspiracy charges might be applicable.
They made a law because of a fucking MOVIE???
What kind of idiots are running this country?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Or do the bots log in to an account, against the conditions of using that account?
"and is supposed to be used to punish "hackers" who break into secure computer systems"
no one broke into any system the bot was invited........
Not to outright criminalize them, but certainly to make it a civil offense to hire people to lie for you. There are plenty of misinformed idiots already, paying people to make them into mobs should be discouraged.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
[CFAA] is supposed to be used to punish "hackers" who break into secure computer systems.
If they were "secure systems", then no one could break in, could they?
Therefore they are actually breaking into insecure systems.