1. Total privacy, they will not track me activity on their website, including any logs.
2. They will send me a cashier's check for $1,000 for each byte that they send to me.
3. They will provide me with Mana Sakura's cell phone number.
I'm still waiting for checks and a phone number.
It is ridiculous. Something like "pagewrap" can't trump the consumer protections that apply to a physical good like a book, it would be laughed off. But the law doesn't contemplate network access so reasonably.
The architect can claim infringement all they want, they don't have a case. From https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/120 :
The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
This is an important caveat to architectural copyright, however, so thanks for clarifying.
See also https://mentalhealthcop.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/place-to-wh... which shows the same ambiguity exists in the UK.
IANAL but this seems perverse. In no meaningful sense am I on corporate property when my computer in my house sends signals to another computer, formatted so that they will be re-sent in turn to a series of other computers, the last of which decides on its own based entirely on the signal it receives from the penultimate host to send a "response" to a different series of other computers, the last of which is my computer in my house.
Surely there are better ways to enforce IP restrictions than this tortured analogy of networked computing to physical location?
Even if we entertain a distinction between browsewrap and clickwrap, browsewrap is generally enforceable, especially after minor modifications to placement and/or font size.
Even for sighted people, the notice is often easy to miss - and this is by design.
I don't think many websites have a secret ToS that they hope you won't read, I think most of them don't even know what their own ToS say. I signed my lease on a site with an explicit checkmark for ToS that said I agreed I would only use exactly IE7 to use their site.
I suppose I can do no better than quote from the Wikipedia page I linked:
> The Second Circuit then noted that an essential ingredient to contract formation is the mutual manifestation of assent. The court found that "a consumer's clicking on a download button does not communicate assent to contractual terms if the offer did not make clear to the consumer that clicking on the download button would signify assent to those terms."
The same page cites a number of cases where a "browsewrap" agreement was found unenforceable and only one where one was found enforceable - and the latter, for what it's worth, involved a sale taking place through the website rather than anything resembling passive browsing. Of course there exist other cases not listed; and there are situations that muddle the distinction between clickwrap and browsewrap. But at least, the very common pattern of, as you said, burying "a notice in the footer of each page" without anything vaguely resembling active consent, as practiced by probably the majority of commercial websites on the internet, seems to pretty clearly fall on the unenforceable side of the line based on those precedents.
This is called "clickwrap". There is usually a notice in the footer of each page that says something like "By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Service." Typically, this kind of notice has been held enforceable. More recently, judges have been demanding that such notices be placed more prominently before they're held enforceable (e.g., somewhere above the fold), but that's it.
>Imagine a hotel that makes guests sign a document saying they will not make photographs of the building. If I'm not a guest, I can take photographs of it and I can't even know that would be illegal.
The reasonable laws that exist in meatspace are not applicable online, because once you hit someone else's server, you're considered to be on their property and they have the right to control what you do there. There is no "public property" from which to safely stand and take photographs in the internet.
Also, photographs of structures may not be free to use. Architectural copyrights went into effect in the early 90s and have a term of either 90 or 120 years. Thus, if you take a photograph of a building built in 1991 and the year is not yet 2111, there is a chance that the architect can claim infringement.