Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Violating a Website's Terms of Service Is Not a Crime, Federal Court Rules (eff.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the better-luck-next-time dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation: Good news out of the Ninth Circuit: the federal court of appeals heeded EFF's advice and rejected an attempt by Oracle to hold a company criminally liable for accessing Oracle's website in a manner it didn't like. The court ruled back in 2012 that merely violating a website's terms of use is not a crime under the federal computer crime statute, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But some companies, like Oracle, turned to state computer crime statutes -- in this case, California and Nevada -- to enforce their computer use preferences. This decision shores up the good precedent from 2012 and makes clear -- if it wasn't clear already -- that violating a corporate computer use policy is not a crime.

82 comments

  1. UA by bugs2squash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think I might put "I do not accept the terms of your user agreement" somewhere in the User Agent String of my browser, see what happens.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re: UA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, u wonâ(TM)t get laid but that is normal anyway

    2. Re:UA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think I might put "I do not accept the terms of your user agreement" somewhere in the User Agent String of my browser, see what happens.

      Nothing would happen.

      See violating a website's terms of service is not a crime, it is a terms of service violation. And under most website's terms of service, violations can be sufficient cause to remove your access to their service. Same as it always was.

      No one cares if you try to be cute on the Internet. But do something they don't like on their service will get your access removed.

      You just can not be charged with a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for a terms of service violation.

    3. Re:UA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't accept the terms of a user agreement, you should click the I Agree button. To do otherwise means you're following their instructions outlined in the user agreement to not click that button. Thus you're practicing the terms of the agreement which goes against your claim of nonacceptance.

    4. Re:UA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But you can still be dragged into court even if the court will eventually side with you.

    5. Re:UA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I believe the logic goes this way:
      Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibits accessing a computer without authorisation.
      If a user accesses a computer service without agreeing to the user agreement, they have unauthorised access.
      Therefore, accessing a computer service (like a website) without agreeing to usage terms is in violation of the Act. I'm sure I remember this being used in regards to facebook and bullying somewhere around 2012.

      The interesting thing about this ruling is it is questioning what is allowed by the service agreement. This particular case appears to be that if the customer already has authorisation to view information, using a piece of software to automate the collection of the same information does not alter the authorisation, despite the use of such software being prohibited by the agreement. I find this interesting because it puts the onus back on the service provider to enforce their own limits, rather than using the law.

    6. Re: UA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "By having your web server serve me the contents of your website, you are agreeing to my terms of service:
      1. You agree to consider your terms of service null and void
      2.-... (be creative)

      If you do not agree to my terms, then end the connection immediately and do not continue serving any content.

      For the avoidance of doubt: you are indicating agreement by maintaining the connection and continuing to serve content"

    7. Re:UA by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But where do you see the terms of the agreement before you've accessed the webserver?

      Also if they have publicly advertised the website anywhere, could that not be taken as authorisation?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    8. Re:UA by mjwx · · Score: 4, Informative

      But you can still be dragged into court even if the court will eventually side with you.

      In the UK, the court will barely entertain this kind of bollocks. The company who sued you will then have to pay your legal fees, that cuts down on this kind of thing a lot.

      A EULA/T&C's/Shrinkwrap license has been ruled completely unenforceable before, even in the US however because the losing party still has to pay their own legal fees, its often profitable to threaten to sue or to go as far as to sue even though you'd lose.

      Its the same kind of "speculative invoicing" extortion racket the RIAA and MPIAA used to run.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:UA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing has changed in that world. The government is the only entity that can and has ever been able to bring criminal charges. Companies can only bring somebody to court over civil matters. I've not read this case, but I'd imagine Oracle petitioned the government to bring criminal charges against somebody, and they refused so Oracle sued that government for "failing to uphold the law" or something like that. This is literally the only way I can see this court case existing, as again, companies cannot bring criminal action against anybody. Citizens can't either for what it's worth. One of my friends can, but he's a prosecutor working for a state government, and even then, he can only do it when he's on the clock working as an agent for the government. He can't just do it in his free time.

    10. Re:UA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can still be dragged into court even if the court will eventually side with you.

      It doesn't have to be a crime in order for you to be held liable for infringement or violation of terms of a contract. Crime has nothing to do with it. The plaintiff can sue for damages, or a cease of damaging behavior based on violation of contract terms.

    11. Re: UA by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      2 - you grant an irrevocable, transferable license to all copyrighted material available on this website.
      3 - you grant an irrevocable, transferable license to any patents protecting any product, software or service available from this website.

    12. Re:UA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its the same kind of "speculative invoicing" extortion racket the RIAA and MPIAA used to run.

      I thought they still did that

  2. Headline is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    First, this is a civil case rather than a criminal one. Laws like the CFAA and the equivalent state laws allow for criminal and civil action. More importantly, the ruling is a narrow one, focused on the specific aspects of this case. The court ruled that Oracle made the data available for downloading from their website. Oracle's objection was the use of automated tools to download the data. The court agreed that Remini violated the terms of service in how they downloaded the data. However, because Remini was authorized to access and download the data, the court ruled that it did not violated the law. It is entirely possible that someone violations of the terms of service might also violate the law. The ruling is logical, but the scope is also narrower than is indicated by the summary.

    1. Re:Headline is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up. This is Slashdot.

    2. Re: Headline is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, because Remini was authorized to access and download the data, the court ruled that it did not violated the law.

      What law, civil or criminal?

      That is the key concept which seems to have gone straight over your head, and is exactly what this article is about.

    3. Re:Headline is misleading by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      We went through this with Rambus. They joined JEDEC (a consortium of memory manufacturers setting future memory standards) and agreed to its terms of membership - mainly, members are not allowed to patent the memory standards being discussed. DDR was being discussed within JEDEC. Rambus went ahead and patented it, and sued the other JEDEC members for violating "their" patents.

      After years of legal battles, the courts found that yes Rambus was guilty of violating JEDEC's membership agreement, and they were subject to whatever punishment they agreed to when they joined JEDEC. But that had nothing to do with the law, so the patents were valid (Rambus being the first to file). Meanwhile, since the JEDEC membership agreement didn't outline any punishment for violating the agreement, the only thing JEDEC could do was kick Rambus out.

      Same thing here. An EULA or ToS is just a contract. If you violate it, you become subject to whatever punishment you agreed to when agreed to the contract. That does not automatically make it a violation of law however. It's only a violation of the law if the act was otherwise illegal. In Rambus' case, patenting stuff freely presented to you is not illegal. In Remini's case, downloading stuff you've been authorized to download is not illegal.

    4. Re:Headline is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, this is a civil case rather than a criminal one.

      Really? I'm far from an expert in US law, but if you take a cursory glance at the original 2012 ruling it really appears to be a criminal case to me. (United States v. $PERSON, not Oracle v. $PERSON, "indicted", etc.)

      More importantly, the ruling is a narrow one, focused on the specific aspects of this case. The court ruled that Oracle made the data available for downloading from their website. Oracle's objection was the use of automated tools to download the data. The court agreed that Remini violated the terms of service in how they downloaded the data. However, because Remini was authorized to access and download the data, the court ruled that it did not violated the law. It is entirely possible that someone violations of the terms of service might also violate the law. The ruling is logical, but the scope is also narrower than is indicated by the summary.

      I agree with your statement about what the ruling says, but you appear to read the summary wrong. The summary does not say "any time any terms of service are violated there is never a crime" (which would obviously be ridiculous), it just says that "violating a website's terms of service is not a crime" (which still leaves open the possibility that the action might constitute a crime anyway, but not because it's a breach of the terms of service).

    5. Re:Headline is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An EULA or ToS is just a contract.

      Correction: An EULA or ToS is just a declaration of terms.

    6. Re:Headline is misleading by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      In the early 1990s, Rambus was invited to join the JEDEC. Rambus had been trying to interest memory manufacturers in licensing their proprietary memory interface, and numerous companies had signed non-disclosure agreements to view Rambus' technical data. During the later Infineon v. Rambus trial, Infineon memos from a meeting with representatives of other manufacturers surfaced, including the line "[O]ne day all computers will be built this way, but hopefully without the royalties going to Rambus", and continuing with a strategy discussion for reducing or eliminating royalties to be paid to Rambus. As Rambus continued its participation in JEDEC, it became apparent that they were not prepared to agree to JEDEC's patent policy requiring owners of patents included in a standard to agree to license that technology under terms that are "reasonable and non-discriminatory",[8] and Rambus withdrew from the organization in 1995. Memos from Rambus at that time showed they were tailoring new patent applications to cover features of SDRAM being discussed, which were public knowledge (JEDEC meetings are not secret) and perfectly legal for patent owners who have patented underlying innovations, but were seen as evidence of bad faith by the jury in the first Infineon v. Rambus trial. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rejected this theory of bad faith in its decision overturning the fraud conviction Infineon achieved in the first trial (see below).

      Rambus deserved to go bust, the rat bastards.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:Headline is misleading by mjwx · · Score: 2

      We went through this with Rambus. They joined JEDEC (a consortium of memory manufacturers setting future memory standards) and agreed to its terms of membership - mainly, members are not allowed to patent the memory standards being discussed. DDR was being discussed within JEDEC. Rambus went ahead and patented it, and sued the other JEDEC members for violating "their" patents.

      After years of legal battles, the courts found that yes Rambus was guilty of violating JEDEC's membership agreement, and they were subject to whatever punishment they agreed to when they joined JEDEC. But that had nothing to do with the law, so the patents were valid (Rambus being the first to file). Meanwhile, since the JEDEC membership agreement didn't outline any punishment for violating the agreement, the only thing JEDEC could do was kick Rambus out.

      Same thing here. An EULA or ToS is just a contract. If you violate it, you become subject to whatever punishment you agreed to when agreed to the contract. That does not automatically make it a violation of law however. It's only a violation of the law if the act was otherwise illegal. In Rambus' case, patenting stuff freely presented to you is not illegal. In Remini's case, downloading stuff you've been authorized to download is not illegal.

      In other words, you dont know what a contract is. Rambus signed an agreement with JEDEC when they joined. The agreement was set out in full and agreed upon by all parties, Rambus had a chance to reveiw and negotiate that contract before signing and this included any penalty clauses. Beyond this, once signed the contract cannot be altered without all parties agreeing to it

      A EULA or ToS are not considered contracts because you cannot negotiate them beforehand, they are not signed (I.E. identity verified, someone can accept a EULA, ToS or shrinkwrap contract without your express consent on your behalf) and they can be altered by one party after the fact without your knowledge, agreement or permission. This is why courts have ruled them non-binding, especially when it comes to penalty clauses.

      I have an agreement with Vodafone that has terms and conditions, I pay them £10 and they give me phone service. They can update their ToS but will never be able to enforce it in law simply because I've never signed it.

      I have a contract with BMW Financial services. I pay them for the car I use, if I, in any way violate the contract (I.E. fail to insure the vehicle) then I can be penalised because I had a negotiated contract I signed in full accordance with the Financial Services Guidelines (I.E. the contract was explained to me in full before signing, cooling off periods and what not). This is enforceable in law.

      Vodafone would even have trouble terminating my service without me violating a law as they had agreed to provide a service. ToS's, EULA's and shrinkwrap contracts are not there to bind the customer to an agreement like a contract, they are there to cover the providers arse in case the customer does something wrong with their product. It's what protects gun manufacturers from being sued when some nutter goes on a rampage.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:Headline is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing here. An EULA or ToS is just a contract. If you violate it, you become subject to whatever punishment you agreed to when agreed to the contract.

      And one can argue that the ToS of a website is pretty much an invalid contract because you don't need to see the contract to download a specific URL, and because far too many of these seem to attempt to bind you to third party contracts you're not shown (ad companies).

      If the site isn't password protected, it's pretty much information they're giving to anybody who comes along.

      Those terms of service which say I need to accept cookies? Or enable javascript? Or let all of those third party asshole ad companies run scripts and track me? The simple fact that I don't accept your cookies, block javascript, and block those ad companies from tracking me and you still serve me content tells me you're not actually doing anything to enforce this contract.

      See, I have a terms of service too, as well as a cookie policy. And my policies say "I likely won't let you set cookies, I probably won't let you run javascript, and I will absolutely block all of the ad companies embedded in your website.

      If I visit your website, it in no way confers on me an obligation to accept the terms of every ad company you have an arrangement with. I do not consent to those companies tracking me, setting cookies, or showing me ads .. and I sure as fuck do not accept their non-existent "privacy" policy.

      If you secure your content behind a password, then, yes, I have agreed to your terms of service. But that doesn't mean I've accepted any third party terms of service or implicit contracts.

      Companies need to realize that we didn't actually sign a contract with them, and unless they have their content secured in such a way that we would be hacking into their systems, they have little say in what we actually do.

    9. Re: Headline is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Click-through agreements that are reasonably shown to work from a technical perspective (there isn't a visible hole that the user was able to exploit to avoid the click-through) have been upheld. Without a click-through (or one which wasn't well implemented and/or verified), you have no proof they agreed to anything.

  3. A lot of what Appeals courts seem to do is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To classify cases as "not an instance of X, as alleged by plaintiffs, but perhaps it could be Y".

    The court ruled the case in question was not a "computer crime", but it probably was a circumstance where the defendants could be held liable for civil damages for violating their employment contract by shipping confidential customer information to a competitor for financial advantage. The same case could be brought even if the customer database was stored on hardcopy in file cabinets, as it probably would have been done 50 years ago.

  4. Re:Oracle is such a piece of shit... by Z80a · · Score: 0

    You probably can do a good product with third world developers if you seek the really skillful ones, but i don't think that companies going to the third world do have skill as any sort of priority.

  5. Re: Then I want my cdreimer account back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While claiming that an username violates the DMCA is an absurd claim, that's not relevant to this ruling. Websites are free to terminate your access for violating the terms of service. The court ruled that it's not against the law to use an automated download tool to access data when the terms of service prohibited automated downloading tools. It still violates the terms of service and Oracle was allowed to terminate access to their site. The court rejected that Oracle could claim damages under state laws for using an automated downloading tool in violation of the terms. Unless anyone has sued you to claim damages under state computer abuse laws for your Slashdot accounts, this is irrelevant.

  6. Kids, just “Say No” to Oracle by BLToday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once you’ve used Oracle they got you. If you try to leave, you can’t. If you stay, they’ll screw you more and more everyday. Best thing is not never start using Oracle.

    1. Re: Kids, just “Say No” to Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest is crap.

    2. Re:Kids, just “Say No” to Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friends don't let friends use Oracle (or Java or MySQL for that matter).

      Real friends help you install MariaDB.

      Facebook friends blah, blah MongoDB is webscale.

    3. Re:Kids, just “Say No” to Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you’ve used Oracle they got you. If you try to leave, you can’t. If you stay, they’ll screw you more and more everyday. Best thing is not never start using Oracle.

      How's that different from Microsoft, Apple, or Google?

      Other than Apple kisses you first...

    4. Re:Kids, just “Say No” to Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's that different from Microsoft, Apple, or Google?

      can you tar up your files and move them to another machine? so what the fuck is your issue, idiot?

    5. Re:Kids, just “Say No” to Oracle by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Once you've used Oracle they got you. If you try to leave, you can't. ...

      Sounds like they're selling drugs. "The first one's free -- here, try it!" OTOH how ELSE do you expect Larry to afford that island?

      https://youtu.be/Sm3b4_XLCOU?t...

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  7. Re:Oracle is such a piece of shit... by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    normal big company(tm)(c) 3rd world story:

    make huge dev centers in India and China.
    then fire a bunch of developers in country of origin of said company, because they don't have good projects to work on(they didn't before either).

    product gets developed in reality by remaining developers in country of origin. the developers in the 3rd world dev centers drink tea and work on some fluff projects. sometime later the 3rd world center gets shuttered for saving money, possibly as the company folds.

    nokia did just this for example, ibm did this.

    with in case of nokia, the thing is, that they had already way too many developers in the country of origin that they had jack all shit to work on that mattered to the company - making the extra dev centers was purely political and useless(nokia had thousands of people working on symbian, but only 5% of them did anything that went to the products and half of those were subcontractors).

    development work does not scale above a certain limit prettily. but big companies can't scale back either so they try to scale up and scaling up in 3rd world countries is cheaper even if it doesn't provide results. note that the problem itself isn't really using 3rd world developers either, it's that you can't just make a product better by hiring thousands of developers - it just makes making the product better vastly more complicated political affair, even when talking about changing few lines of code to add some functionality the executives actually want in.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  8. Re:Oracle is such a piece of shit... by BLToday · · Score: 2

    You probably can do a good product with third world developers if you seek the really skillful ones, but i don't think that companies going to the third world do have skill as any sort of priority.

    While that’s true in theory, I’ve only seen it happen if you keep a really keen eye on those developers. Implement more QA/QC than you normally. The problems with good 3rd world developers there are not a lot of them, they’re not that cheap and they don’t generally want to rewrite or debug their code.

  9. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a criminal act, and rejecting the notion that violating a website EULA is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is to say it's not a crime.

    So headline is spot on: "Violating a Website's Terms of Service Is Not a Crime, Federal Court Rules"

    " It is entirely possible that someone violations of the terms of service might also violate the law."

    If they violated the law, violating the EULA or not is irrelevant. It comes down to "do you have the right to access the website" yes/no. Not "are you accessing it within the terms of the EULA".
    So yeh, hacking into a private website might be a crime, and it might also violate or not the EULA, but the EULA doesn't define the crime, the law does.

    1. Re: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This case isn't about the CFAA. It's about state laws in California and Nevada. Violations of these laws may result in civil or criminal proceedings. If someone violated these laws, the victim is able to sue to recover damages. These laws make it illegal to access data that the user isn't permitted to access. If the terms of service indicate that a user isn't authorized to access certain data, but the user does so anyway, that probably would be relevant to the CFAA and the equivalent state laws.

    2. Re:Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be more convincing if you cited the specific parts of the ruling that indicate how the assertions you're making about the headline's accuracy are, in fact, correct.

  10. Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hell ya! Fuck you Slashdot Media. I no longer grant you the permission to display my logo, trademarks and company name on your sites nor in press and other public releases or filings. Take that!

    1. Re: Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell ya! Fuck you Slashdot Media. I no longer grant you the permission to display my logo, trademarks and company name on your sites nor in press and other public releases or filings. Take that!

      I read a story recently that a court ruled this wasn't a crime. So good luck stopping Slashdot Media from doing this...

  11. Re: Then I want my cdreimer account back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that dude is an idiot loser but his stalkers are also idiot losers, but it was fun to watch lol

  12. The philosophy of the contract... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Contracts are weird things.

    Agreements very often made with intentionally confusing terms, which are simultaneously:

    1) Virtually always signed without actually reading in their full meaning, but rather verbally summarized by a biased beneficiary of the contract - and usually not even that. Indeed, the very idea of reading a contract is almost a faux pas, and is only tolerated with a raised eyebrow.

    2) Somehow also considered an almost sacred agreement that must be upheld at great cost - often more important than most forms of important morality or personal needs. Breaking a contract is a completely valid reason to shun a person, or do things to them that would be considered ruining their life.

    Indeed - much of the law is considered to be a loose substitute for contract logic, rather than the other way around.

    To me, as a programmer, this entire set of logic is absurd. And I've worked extensively with lawyers, and other notable rule-keeping organizations - the way people allow contracts to act as if they were a genie's wish, when they are such sloppy, crude documents, masked behind vague catch-all phrases, in virtually all cases just gives me pause whenever I look into them.

    Contracts are a very poor way of reaching an agreement, though I can see how they're the best folks know how to use in general.

    The odd thing is how folks tend to be cynical about statistics and accounting - but then accept contracts as if they were a real assurance that someone is willing to truly work with them.

    It's also what bothers be about libertarian idealism - the thought of governance as a system replaced with a hyper-religious use of contracts. Like economics, contracts only mean what they say, as long as the system can't be stretched by a group to hold values that said group wants to force them to hold after the fact.

    The value of contracts flows, the same as currencies - the same as relationships.

  13. Re:Oracle is such a piece of shit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problems with good 3rd world developers there are not a lot of them, they’re not that cheap and they don’t generally want to rewrite or debug their code.

    Quality costs now matter where you go. The cheap guys can always move on to another cheap contract if you hassle them too much and since you don't really know who they are and could be doing business under a different name one day to the next or even one contract to the next, complaining is useless. Dealing with Indian developers is a fitting punishment for PHBs who are cheap and stupid. They deserve each other, liars and cheaters both of them.

  14. Re:Oracle is such a piece of shit... by mad-seumas · · Score: 1

    they’re not that cheap and they don’t generally want to rewrite or debug their code.

    i.e. useless.

  15. Having read the case by guruevi · · Score: 5, Informative

    It seems two things are at play here: the fact that a EULA cannot limit the publicly or contractually available Information.

    The other thing reading further into the case is the fact that Oracle seems to argue that it's copyright does not permit any third parties to obtain any part of the closed source system and the courts agreed with that. The court also holds that any modifications to closed source software are illegal unless you hold an explicit license.

    So let's say you are a company and want maintenance work done on your Oracle system, the third party cannot download copies of eg software updates for you because the license does not include that third party.

    This should be a big warning for anyone using Windows and other closed source software, the software license does not extend to anyone else therefore even just downloading the patches could get you into copyright infringement.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  16. Re: Oracle is such a piece of shit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well Oracle and Cisco are basically pure evil.

    Even if Oracle was in the right, Website TOS should never be legally enforced beyond simple authentication. If a site makes no effort to prevent unauthorized access/data scrapes, then every thing on the site is considered public and free to access (not redistribute.)

  17. Re:Oracle is such a piece of shit... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Oracle used to advertise they could run on a large list of OS's. In practice, they either never bothered to tune many ports: got it running just good enough to not crash (too often), and/or were many versions behind on less-used OS's. They're master spinners.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  18. public site so... by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

    If its a Public available site as anyone can load up the site and see then it should be same as walking down side walk and looking in to a store window. If oracle wants they could ban and block the companies bot from accessing their site, they would be allowed to do that but it would be like a store saying you can walk on public side walk OUTSIDE their store least that is what Oracle is trying to make case on.

  19. Civil not Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure they can rule that it is not a criminal case against the computer fraud and abuse act. However a EULA is still technically a contract. They could still come after you in civil court for damages due to breech of contract.

  20. Re:Oracle is such a piece of shit... by MadKeithV · · Score: 3, Informative

    That sounds like a variation on Brook's Law - adding more people to a late project makes it later.

  21. Aaron Swartz by QuadEddie · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...will be relived that they're starting to reign in that act. Somebody go back in time and call off the suicide - he would have only had to spend a few years, not what he was sentenced.

  22. So can I scrape Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming a user grants permission to access his profile

    1. Re:So can I scrape Facebook? by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      If its public yea, as courts have ruled "you have no expectation of privacy in public" same thing.

  23. Only in the US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... would you still be arguing if something stipulated by a private party supersedes the law.

  24. Re:Oracle is such a piece of shit... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

    Add to that "Lay x% of developers in country of origin off every quarter for "performance reasons" relative to the rest of their team, even if they're more productive than the rest of the company. Team spends time "competing" rather than producing.

    Watch executive bonuses soar, and actual GOOD developers run to the fucking hills.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  25. Oracle is just retarded by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    I have no other way to describe it when a company thinks that any TOS or EULA it has written is law.

    There is a process true laws must go through before becoming valid. They might want to refamiliarize themselves with that concept.

    Hell, they can just go watch the episode of School House Rock for the simple version.

    Sings: I'm just a bill. . .

  26. Re: Then I want my cdreimer account back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "was"? We're still at it every day! If anything we should be thanked for keeping creimer at -1. It's because of our tireless efforts that we got the mongoloid cretin at -1. But like any fungus or parasite, he will grow back unless we keep shining the ultraviolet rays at him.

    His toothless shambolic presence is not wanted here. Not a single (logged in) person has come to his defense. No one misses his puerile scatological humor, his lame references, his low-effort posts, or his "humor".

  27. Re:Then I want my cdreimer account back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound bitter, sweet tits.

  28. Re: Then I want my cdreimer account back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Creimer is doing a public service by distracting the trolls into a shitstorm frenzy everyday. Otherwise they would be harassing other logged in users to run them off of Slashdot. Joe Dragon is the next target for these trolls.

  29. I can make Oracle go away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm really happy this nonsense was reported. I just inherited a team that uses an Oracle product, which I plan to dump in favor of something open source. The loss for Oracle will be a rounding error but I hope others do the same and run this garbage company out of business.

  30. Re:Then I want my cdreimer account back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You really need to stop these public confessions of violating the Slashdot TOS. If creimer wanted the FatCashewsLoveMe account (and probably your other cashews accounts), Slashdot management would give it to him because of this recent confession. Creating accounts to abuse another user is a violation of the Slashdot TOS. Creimer took possession of six such accounts in the last year. Besides, you were the asshole who forced the creimer/cdreimer issue in the first place.

  31. Re: Oracle is such a piece of shit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes redistribute as well because try and stop the dissemination of what is made publicly available.

  32. Re:Oracle is such a piece of shit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although, Brooks's Law does assume a certain level of competence on the part of the original people on the project. But the solution there is not adding people, but replacing them.

  33. Re:Happy Australia Day by jnork · · Score: 1

    I think I'm not planning to follow that link to find out what's there.

    Also have to wonder about "fellow yank" in a thread titled "Happy Australia Day." Does not lull suspicion.

    --
    Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
  34. Re: The story of creimy the mountain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is the story of creimy the mountain!

    Listen to the audio version here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    "Creimy The Mountain"

    includes quotes from Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1 in D major (Edward Elgar), Johnny's Theme (Paul Anka), Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder (Crawford), O Mein Papa (Paul Burkhard), Over The Rainbow (Harburg/Arlen), Star-Spangled Banner (Smith/Key), Suite: Judy Blue Eyes (Stephen Stills)

    One, two, three

    CREIMY the Mountain
    CREIMY the Mountain
    A regular picturesque
    Postcardy mountain
    Residing between lovely
    Rosamond and Gorman
    With his stunning wife ETHELL, A tree! A tree!

    CREIMY was a mountain ETHELL was a tree Growing off of his shoulder

    CREIMY was a mountain
    (CREIMY was a mountain!)
    ETHELL was a tree Growing off of his shoulder
    (ETHELL was a tree growing off of his shoulder)
    (hey, hey hey!)

    Creimy had two big
    Caves for eyes,
    With a cliff for a jaw
    That would go up 'n down,
    And whenever it did,
    He'd puff out some dust,
    And hack up a boulder (HACK!) Hack up a boulder (HACK! HACK!)
    Hack up a boulder (HACK! HACK! HACK!) Up a boulder

    Now, one day, now I believe it was on a Tuesday, a man in a checkered double-knit suit drove up in a large El Dorado Cadillac, leased from BOB SPREEN

    ("Where the freeways meet in Downey!")

    And he laid a HUGE, BULGING ENVELOPE right at the corner of CREIMY THE MOUNTAIN, that was right where his 'foot' was supposed to be.

    Now, CREIMY THE MOUNTAIN, he couldn't believe it! All those postcards he'd posed for, for ALL OF THOSE YEARS, and finally, now, AT LAST, his Royalties!

    Royalties! Royalties Royalties! Royalty check is in, honey!

    Yes, CREIMY THE MOUNTAIN was RICH! Yes, and his eyeball-caves, they widened in amazement, and his jaw (which was a cliff), well it dropped thirty feet!

    A bunch of dust puffed out! Rocks and boulders hacked up, (hack! hack!) crushing 'The LINCOLN'!

    I gave him the money He acted real funny He hocked up a rock and It TOTALLED my car!

    Oh, do you Know any trucks Might be bound for THE VALLEY?
    I don't wanna stand here All night in this bar (Dear Lord)

    I don't wanna stand here All night in this bar (No shit!)

    I don't wanna stand here All night in this bar!

    By two o'clock, when the bars are already closed down, CREIMY had broken 'THE BIG NEWS' to ETHELL. And with dust and boulders everywhere, CREIMY, choked with excitement, announced

    "ETHELL, we're going on a VACATION!"

    Yes, and they WERE going on a vacation! (Oh, and ETHELL, ETHELL, ETHELL, like every little woman, she of course was very excited! She creaked a little bit, and some old birds flew off of her.) CREIMY told ETHELL they were going to Yes! They were going to NEW YORK!

    "ETHELL, we're going to New York!"

    But first they were gonna stop in LAS VEGAS

    It's off to LAS VEGAS to check out the lounges Pull a few handles,
    And drink a few beers, (Oh, ETHELL!)

    ETHELL, my darling, you know that I love you!
    I'm glad we could have a Vacation this year! (Oh, NEET-O!)

    Glad we could have a Vacation this year!

    They left that night, crunchin' across the Mojave Desert their voices echoing through the canyons of your minds (POO-AAH!)

    "ETHELL, wanna get a cuppa cawfee?"

    (Howard Johnson's! Howard Johnson's!
    Howard Johnson's! Howard Johnson's!)

    "Ahhh! there's a HOWARD JOHNSONS! Wanna eat some CLAMS?"

    The first noteworhty piece of real estate they destroyed was EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE

    And TO THIS VERY DAY, 'Wing Nuts' and Data Reduction Clerks alike, speak in reverent whispers about that fateful night when TEST STAND #1 and THE ROCKET SLED ITSELF (We have ignition!) got LUNCHED! I said LUNCHED! (Lunched!) By a FAMOUS MOUNTAIN-IN and his SMALL, WOODEN WIFE.

    "Word just in to the KTTV News Service undeniably links THIS MOUNTAIN and HIS WIFE to drug abuse and pay-offs as part

  35. Re: Then I want my cdreimer account back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There you are spamming amazon and youtube affiliate links with yet another fake account, you revenue stream hogging disgusting fat sexist tube of lard, Christopher Dale Reimer!

    You can be sure I will be watching this fake account too. I know this is you because you told me you were working on your freepass 11 file server and you are so dumb that you can't even masquerade yourself properly.

    Now, I told you I was out of meds last week and you didn't even care to contact me you lazy fucker.

    How many times do I have to express the emergency of the situation??????

    The python click script you wrote for my pheromone revenue stream web site suddenly stopped to work!!!!!!

    You fucking incompetent python script writer!!!

    When it works, I get 4000+ clicks a day on my pheromone revenue stream web site but only 5 or 6 without it!!!!

    Now, it seems like you dont care and that you have abandoned me you heartless fucking pig!

    Bonus:
    Here is a story that creimer told me when convincing me what a hard life he had:

    The tree was him and the tree knot was his butt hole!

    So, his uncle packed his fat ass with lard and with his cock! Not that it makes much of a difference but anyway, there it is!

    Signed:
    The girl that used to love you and now hates you, burn in hell where you belong you sexist pig!

  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Re: The story of creimy the mountain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha +1 hilarious!

    I was actually there at that concert!

    You forgot to mention creimy's royalties in the title! He is so concentrated on his royalties...

    Thanks for that, ROFL! you made my day!

  38. Re: Then I want my cdreimer account back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He wasn't trolling people. He was making fun of ("parodying") your odd style of posting that involves constantly repeated stories told with poor grammar. You got annoyed, a few people laughed, and probably the large majority of Slashdot readers filter out posts below 2 and so they never saw the whole shitshow in the first place.

    Slashdot surely didn't think you had a legal case, because really, what would it be? Fraud? Making fun of a retard is poor behavior but not actually illegal.

  39. Re: Then I want my cdreimer account back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He also constantly posts the same odd and tiresome replies about goats and cousins and tits.

    He's an odd one for sure.

  40. Re: Then I want my cdreimer account back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound bitter sweet tits.