Judge Refuses To Dismiss Criminal Charges For Violating Ticketmaster's Terms Of Service; Trial Moves Forward
from the read-the-fine-print dept
We've discussed how it's becoming unfortunately common for companies to use the The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to turn things that should not be criminal cases into criminal cases. What's often done is that someone will find a part of a website's terms of service that was not obeyed, and then use that to claim that the access to the website was "unauthorized," thus triggering criminal charges under the CFAA. We've seen it in the recent Facebook/Power.com lawsuit as well as, most famously, in the Lori Drew case, which eventually was dismissed, only after a jury ruled on the matter.During the summer, we had discussed how the same issue was coming up in a case involving a ticket reseller who had created computer systems to get by Ticketmaster's attempts to limit ticket sales. They would get around purchase limits and things like CAPTCHAs with some automated software that, from the sound of things, was incredibly effective. Now, violating the site's terms of service might be a contractual violation, but a criminal one? As much as people might dislike scalpers buying up tickets to popular events and then reselling them, that doesn't mean we should let those feelings cloud the specific legal questions.
Unfortunately, a judge has decided to punt on the matter, at least for now, refusing to dismiss the case at this stage, and setting a date for a trial next year. While the judge is aware of the Lori Drew case, she claimed that the fact pattern there was really different and, anyway, the decision on the appropriateness of using the CFAA was ruled on after the trial. That last point seems rather meaningless. The appropriateness of the CFAA doesn't seem like something that requires a trial. In the Drew case, the trial was a total waste for everyone involved, because after it was decided, the judge decided to toss everything out anyway. Why not save everyone the time and handle it up front?
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
Filed Under: hacking, terms of service
Companies: ticketmaster
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This might make sense ...
Now I have no idea of the validity of that statement, but if they actually hacked into ticketmaster's system and stole source code that would be a criminal act. The rest of it sounds more like a contract dispute, but I'm no legal expert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This might make sense ...
However, courts have been notoriously dim-witted about what it means to "hack" or "obtain source code": people have been dragged into court for using dig to look up DNS records and for using "view source" in web browsers. So until the precise details of this allegation are known, I'm not inclined to give it much weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This might make sense ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This might make sense ...
Funny how definitions change over time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This might make sense ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This might make sense ...
If people want to call html a programming language, so be it. I think the point being made here is that the html you see when using the "View Source" button didn't used to be considered source code and the act of viewing it is certainly not hacking. Neither is it trespassing, what is being viewed resides in local storage.
The fact that some refer to URL changes as hacking is rather funny, and the lengths to which they go in the attempt to build rational is truly amazing. The sad part is that others believe it and eventually it becomes fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This might make sense ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The line between hacking and not hacking is not as clear-cut as you might imagine.
The only clear-cut way to handle this is to outlaw EULAs and let the internet be the wild west. I'm game for it. I think we can handle it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or even enough force, eh? Why, there's really no such thing as non-public!
/s
Bull.
Perhaps you don't know what people mean when they say "publicly accessible information". The mean information that the holder *intentionally* makes public. Not that which requires "hook, crook or force" (as the saying goes) to access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny how definitions change over time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not a criminal act?
While I agree that we need to be careful that such concepts are not abused or otherwise taken too far, I do not disagree with the core concept.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not a criminal act?
I'd like to know where you live that has that as law. In my state, you can call the police and have the police issued a lawful order to them to leave and not return. If they then violate that order, they can be arrested. You can't, for example, put up a sign in a bar prohibiting people from criticizing the libertarian party while there and then have those who do so arrested for "violating your terms".
So where is this law you're talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not a criminal act?
Yes, most likely, the cops will just see to the removal of the trespasser - unless it can be argued that it's not merely trespass, but actually breaking and entering. And if it's MY property, I'm certainly going to insist that I have the right to at least make that argument.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why not a criminal act?
It is if you're claiming that you can have people arrested for violating your "terms of use" for being on your property, as you claimed.
If I had a private club, I could set whatever rules I wanted, including limits on the ability of members to speak their minds. However, if the public is invited - even though it's private property - they generally get to spout off about whatever they want, as long as they're not actually causing a real problem (like interfering with others, intimidating/threatening people, etc., etc.).
Actually, you can make them leave if you want to (even if they aren't "interfering with others, intimidating/threatening people, etc., etc."), but you can't have them "thrown in the hoosegow", to use your term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not a criminal act?
Not paying admission means bypassing an access-control mechanism, which is not at all the case with most terms of service violations. If website's terms of service say I'm not allowed to criticize the owner, I don't suddenly become a trespasser if I criticize the owner after having visited his website. If the website required a password and I were to break that password to gain unauthorized access, then and only then could you make a reasonable trespassing analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not a criminal act?
Treaspassing is not even close to being the same as violating the terms of service of a web site.
As already pointed out, you can not "have the trespasser thrown in the hoosegow". At least not in most civilized societies. Who are you - Judge Dread?
Pro-Tip: To score extra points with your bad analogy, include an automobile. For example, you could say that noncompliance with your website terms of service is like a drunk barfing all over the interior of your yellow cab.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not a criminal act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not a criminal act?
"Judge Dredd". No 'a', two 'd's.
We now return you to actually important info... sorry for the interruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The System Profits Anyway
Umm, no. The judge, lawyers, etc. involved were all paid very well for their time. So while it may have been a total waste for Drew, the legal system made a nice profit off it. I suspect that's the judge doesn't want to dismiss this case: The lawyers and others involved stand to make a nice profit however it turns out and she doesn't want to spoil the opportunity for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scalping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: scalping
Scalpers, like email spammers, should be shot. And anyone purchasing from them is just exacerbating the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: scalping
For example, I can purchase tickets to the local symphony directly from the symphony's website and they send me the tickets... nothing to do with TM. And only a small service & printing fee, I might add!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dont understand...
I understand over the course of time people would become annoyed with the higher prices, and venues would no longer sell through the company.
Nonetheless, I could do the same thing without a computer or "hacked" software. Ill just hire 10 people to click thru the captchas constantly. Hell, Ill even use a credit card with rewards to make even more money.
The point is, ticketmaster should be able to get a ruling making sort of a restraining order against the opposing company.
While I do believe it is wrong for this company to take advantage of a system like that, I DONT think it is a criminal case. At the most, the offending company should have to pay the legal bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hope they hang them high!
Wait I have an Idea, I'll go to the gas station and buy all but 20% of the gas and then if 80% of the motorists want to drive their car they will have to pay my mark up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hope they hang them high!
Why do we constantly turn to the government to police our convenience? Back in the day, you had to go to the ticket window to buy most tickets to most events. Along came technology and made things more convenient. Unfortunately, that also came with people looking to take advantage of that for money. I TRUELY wish we as a race have evolved past this petty greed by now, but alas we have not. I fully agree that the offending dirt bag (I think your word is too nice, by the way) should be cursed, mocked, and banned from ever buying from those vendors again. The last part of that is something the vendor is fully within its right to do. But why should it be made illegal?
If this is such a problem, them swallow your convenience and tell your local vendors to go back to a box-office system. So you won't be able to buy tickets online in advance... but they won't be as easily scalped, will they? Let's keep this in perspective here... these people are not robbing you of money... they're just taking advantage of your desire for convenience and your willingness to pay. Does it suck? Yes, absolutely. Should it be illegal? No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]