Thank you for ad blocking

Re:Thank you for ad blocking by pdkl95 on Sunday March 20, 2016 @04:46PM (#11324582)

> By the same logic

Your "hacking" analogy is irrelevant; hacking and contracts are completely different categories of law.

> the law

I am very familiar with contract law. You might want to read about it sometime. HTTP does not involve an offer, a meeting of the minds about the obligations the contract would create for each party, or anything that signals acceptance of the offer.

If you want to argue that an HTTP request creates any obligation for either party, then you need to show the elements[1] that created the contract.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Elements_of_contract_...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thank you for ad blocking by ikeboy on Sunday March 20, 2016 @05:04PM (#11324657)

There are two different points here. Firstly, the claim that merely requesting data can't be illegal is shown to be wrong by hacking, which is illegal even if it only consists of requests. Second, the comparison to contracts is when the TOS was agreed to. Even the EFF agrees that they can be legally binding, as I linked to elsewhere. https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-t...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thank you for ad blocking by pdkl95 on Sunday March 20, 2016 @06:06PM (#11324904)

> hacking

Asking for a page over HTTP isn't hacking; again, this is entirely off-topic.

> TOS

The TOS wasn't even presented to the client. (an <a> tag to the TOS isn't a the TOS itself, nor is it an offer of a contract. It isn't even an "invitation to treat".

> agreed to

Nothing has been agreed to. An HTTP request sends a GET, and the server volunteered to send a page of content as their reply. They could have sent an offer of a contract, or some sort of "access denied" message, or any other response.

> See also

LOL. That page is a nice example of properly handling a request.

      The use of ad blockers is on the rise, especially...
    </div>

    <div style="font-weight: bold">
      To view the full article, register now.
    </div>

Sorry, no, I'm no going to register for a shady site like that just to read someone's legal fantasies.

See what just happened there? They made an offer, I declined to accept it and didn't receive the content. You negotiate the contract before you exchange consideration.

> /articles/726505/expect-lawsuits-against-ad-blockers

I'm sure there will be lawsuits against ad blockers. That's what failing businesses do. That doesn't mean their claims are valid.

Contracts are not surprises or gotchas. Show how the elements of a contract (an offer, acceptance of that offer, each party's intent to be bound, and the exchange of consideration), or your claims are just wishful thinking.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thank you for ad blocking by ikeboy on Sunday March 20, 2016 @06:17PM (#11324944)

>Asking for a page over HTTP isn't hacking; again, this is entirely off-topic.

It can be. See e.g. https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-auernheimer, which as far as I can tell involved only http/s requests.

>Nothing has been agreed to. An HTTP request sends a GET, and the server volunteered to send a page of content as their reply. They could have sent an offer of a contract, or some sort of "access denied" message, or any other response.

Again, as the example above shows, this logic has not been accepted by the courts.

Re law360: I followed a link from Google and didn't realize that it was regwalled.

[ Parent | on HN ]