We'll Have To Wait For The Next Lawsuit To Find Out If A Web Crawler Can Enter Into A Contract
from the settled-away dept
Last month, news spread concerning a somewhat odd lawsuit involving the Internet Archive and the question as to whether or not a computer spider can enter into a contract just by indexing a website. The case involved a woman who ran a website and had put some text at the bottom claiming that just visiting the website was entering into a contract, and part of that contract included not copying or distributing the content. The Internet Archive's spider did what it does and archived the page, leading to the threat of a lawsuit. The Internet Archive preemptively went to court to have a judge say they were in the clear, at which point the woman countersued. Of course, she didn't just countersue for copyright infringement, but a range of charges including racketeering. Most of the discussion focused on whether or not a spider could enter into a contract, though an equally compelling question is whether or not you can automatically force someone to give up their fair use rights. Unfortunately, neither question is going to be decided in this case. WebProNews reports that the woman and the Internet Archive have settled the case out of court with both sides putting happy faces on the story. At the same time, however, WebProNews also reports that the woman in question is still going after some of her critics, including publishing all sorts of personal information about at least two of them, potentially violating some privacy laws (at least one of the critics she's revealing info on is a minor). So perhaps there will still be a lawsuit stemming from this situation after all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Unfortunate
I say next time she should directly sue the bot, I would like to see a judge laugh her out of court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunate
This woman is an example of everything I hate. Not only is she an idiot, but he has a website to spread her idiocy and the audacity to abuse the legal system (as if it hasn't been abused enough). All they need to do to top this off, for me anyway, is find out she is on welfare or something. That would really ruin my day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfortunate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunate
In most states, there are laws that only allow payment of legal fees from the losing party if their lawsuit is completely unfounded or basically just wasting the courts time. Since there is no precedent for this sort of lawsuit, it would not be considered frivolous, even if morally it is.
Of course, Internet Archive could always counter-sue her for the legal fees, but that would just mean more legal fees and they couldn't counter-sue her for the counter-suits legal fees.
Silly, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfortunate
Not really, she can have it on the first webpage. The contract simply states you can not use her material or link to it. The disclaimer seemed to be on the first page you visited so people know what the contract is. They can either a) view the information, b) leave the site, or c) use the content and be sued. Since most people will not use the content, it is a pretty solid disclaimer.
The issue is whether a bot, hence the bot making company, can be sued for "agreeing" to the terms, but still linking to the content. I say no since a bot is not human, but then again I am not a judge. Beside, she did not reasonable try to avoid the bot linking to her content using robot.txt.
I think we should call this woman "black widow" since that is obviously what she is doing. Setting a trap and then making the kill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunate
Every page should be copyrighted or have a disclaimer if you want it noted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfortunate
She is an ex-lawyer, so chances of her overlooking disclaimers are slim to none. Does anyone actually know where this website is? I want to see it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfortunate
I guess she now does NOT allow any hot-linking to the entire website - not just individual pages. The only way to get into the pages is to manually copy the link and paste it into a new window.... though, that seem like much more work than it's worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want to make a contract!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want to make a contract!
[insert evil laugh here]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
contracts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: contracts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad is right
When we drive a car, it is asumed we know certain things about it. We even must test our knowledge on it before being allowed to drive.
Perhaps this is were computer use is headed. Before being allowed to access the information highway, you need a liscence. I know a LOT of people who really have no clue about using a computer, and accessing the Internet? I get calls on a regular basis from friends to fix very basic Internet releated PC problems. Problems that should never occur, if the had more than "a little knowledge."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
site looked like it was all text, but last time i saw that site it had a 'design' -- and both times it made me want to scoop out my eyejuice with rusty fishhooks rather than gaze upon its wretchedness.
i exaggerate, but only slightly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA!
The site looks pretty crappy without JavaScript, but the JavaScript doesn't help much :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no-follow/no-index anyone?
The statement is all fine and dandy for a person, but these types of meta-tags are there specifically for this kind of thing. If she had a no-index there and the Internet Archives ignored it, then she has a point. Otherwise, she's completely in the wrong IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
robots.txt
This is why web crawlers should be granted permission in advance to browse a site through the robots.txt file. "Every" website that wants to be indexed should contain a robots.txt file. (this is not currently the case)
If a site does not have a robots.txt file, then it should illegal for anyone to index it. Everyone who wants to be indexed will create a robots.txt file. Everyone who is stupid will not have one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: robots.txt
Bad idea. Most people either want their site indexed or just don't care. Why should those people be inconvenienced for the sake of a stupid, whiny minority?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: robots.txt
It is actually a good idea. It does not matter at all that most people want their site indexed. If they want their site indexed, they should create a robots.txt file. The ignorant probably do not even have quality content to be listed, anyways.
Search engines should be required to ask permission before copying content. The robots.txt file is perfect for this request.
Can I copy other peoples websites without asking? No. Why should robots be allowed.
This idea would prevent ANY future court cases on this topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are we surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: robots.txt
Maybe all websites should have a set of standard, W3C mandated, Terms of Use, which apply to robots, which simply states that the robots.txt file must be obeyed by robots, provided it meets W3C standards for the file. Naturally, this can only apply to W3C-compilant sites, but provided each country's implementation of the mandate states that if there is no valid robots.txt file the site is considered to be open to robots to acces however the programmer desires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]