Actually I'd argue that you're more obligated to abide by something you explicitly checked "I have read and accepted..." than something that was listed somewhere in a file you downloaded with some other stuff. You probably just happen to like the terms of the GPL or ASL more than you like the terms of Google's API. I do too - but at what point are we just losing all integrity because we're too lazy to read a long document we have no intention of actually agreeing with?

If there is an actual click-through and the license is understandable by a human, perhaps. Usually there is neither, though.

I rarely even know how to look up terms of an API, or that there is an API. If I know the name of the API, I can look for "Google Foo API", but that name isn't always obvious. If I just see a URL with an obvious schema, and I change the HTTP GET parameters to retrieve different stuff, am I allowed to use that in, say, a small-scale art project, or not? The usual internet default is that public URLs are implicitly giving blanket permission to retrieve them, except that retrieval by spiders should abide by robots.txt. Google itself makes heavy use of this ok-to-retrieve default assumption.

If I go to http://maps.google.com there is no license presented to me as a condition of using the service. I can however look for fine print and seek out the link "Terms of Service" of my own accord, at which point I get this: http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/help/terms_maps.html

Those terms specifically forbid several things I'm definitely not doing (mass-downloading data, using it for turn-by-turn navigation, etc.), so my first read of it makes it sound like grabbing Maps content in my art project is okay. But then I'm not a lawyer, so maybe it isn't okay.

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse here, but maps.google.com is the public Google Maps website, while the Google Maps Javascript API lives at https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/. The very first page there says:

The JavaScript Maps API V3 is a free service, available for any web site that is free to consumers. Please see the terms of use for more information. ...with a link to the full TOS for the API: https://developers.google.com/maps/terms

Ridiculous.

Playing dumb isn't an excuse. Can I stop paying my morgtage on my house because the 40 pages of documents I signed I don't 100% understand? No.

If you want to enter a legally binding contract that you don't understand you hire someone to help you do so, or face the consequences if you signed something you were not smart enough to be signing.

> if you signed something you were not smart enough to be signing

That's good advice, but I didn't sign anything here.

I have in the past signed contracts with companies agreeing to use services or software in certain ways (generally pre-release stuff under NDA), and in those cases I do indeed read the contract carefully before signing it, sometimes redlining parts of it before they countersign, and I abide by our mutually agreed result. If I don't feel I understand it, I refuse to sign, or ask for clarification.

However, to my knowledge, I have never signed a contract with Google. If they had asked me to do so, I would certainly have refused if I didn't understand the terms. But I do not believe they have even asked me to. All I have done is visit their website, just like they have visited my website.

I have a ToS on my own site, but as far as I can tell, Google just accesses my site however it wants and does not read it (they definitely don't pay me for the premium tier, despite exceeding the stated free access limits).

>However, to my knowledge, I have never signed a contract with Google.

To use their API you will need to agree to their TOS

https://developers.google.com/maps/licensing

I have never visited that page. I have visited this one: http://maps.google.com

That webpage serves map tiles over HTTP, without asking me to agree to a contract first. I take it that I may therefore access the map tiles over HTTP? Obviously I assume I cannot redistribute them, as they're copyrighted. And it is good netiquette to observe robots.txt for bulk/crawl access. But beyond that I don't believe me visiting their page constitutes me "signing" a contract with Google, any more than Google visiting my page constitutes them "signing" a contract with me.

Perhaps there is some other API with nice JSON stuff and OAuth or whatever, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm just doing HTTP GET requests for map tile URLs.

I think you're confusing accessing a public version of their data with accessing their API, which this thread is about. When you use maps.google.com you are NOT agreeing to any terms, because they don't really require any to use their data on their site, but when you use the API, you're required to agree to their terms before being able to use it.

FWIW, there's a "Terms" link at the bottom of maps.google.com which links to the additional ToS for Google Maps/Earth:

https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/help/terms_maps.html

and the first link there is the Google Universal Terms of Service that you also agree to bind yourself to:

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

In what sense did I "agree to bind [myself]" to those terms? I just loaded a public website that has map tiles on it. You are arguing that I have agreed, thereby, to something written on a different website (two clicks away), which I was neither presented, nor asked to agree to, nor signed an agreement to?

It seems very similar in the sense to which Google "agreed" to pay me money if they spider my page more than N times/day, which is what my own website's terms say in the footer. Yet I've never received a check. Is Google playing dumb and claiming they never read the terms, so can't be held liable?

Aren't the same exact APIs are serving as backend to that "public version"?

If so, looking at whatever data's on your wire (browsers are subclass of user-agents for a reason), and then doing similar requests by example does not make you sign some agreement with Google, right?

> Aren't the same exact APIs are serving as backend to that "public version"?

Nope.

Just because their app consumes their API doesn't mean that the app and it's endusers are subject to the same terms as the API.

Actually, given the events of the last few years, it's entirely possible to stop paying the mortgage on your house by pleading ignorance to the documents you signed.

More to the point -- regardless of the specifics of the law, the persistent desire of this forum to correlate legality to moral correctness is somewhat disturbing. What does it even mean to form an agreement with "Google"? Even assuming the historical basis of contract law, what constitutes "consideration" in an agreement like this?

Personally... I don't see any ethical reason to perform negotiations with organizations that have become as large and as disconnected as Google. I speak to employee after employee and they all speak of Google's commitment to privacy, to openness, to not doing evil; but the actions of Google at every turn display otherwise. A man can make an agreement with another man or perhaps even with an organization that is capable of coherent action, but Google is neither. No "agreement" with Google is valid if only because Google is not a collective that one can actually negotiate with, never mind that it's proven time and time again willing to discard agreements and promises in the name of profit.

Finally, the statement is often made that if one chooses not to consider Google as an entity with which one can negotiate, one should simply not utilize their resources. Why? Because we can't negotiate with a mountain, should we fail to mine the minerals therein? Google is a mound of computational power and data with no remaining hold on human morality or ethics -- anything we can retrieve from there is salvage. Take it and use for the betterment of humanity, because they certainly will not be doing so.

Maybe if google (and all other companies with similar "walled" gardens) had a leg to stand on when it comes to data, one might be more inclined to care more to abide by their wishes…

Playing dumb isn't an excuse; But if one were to juxtapose the consequences of ignoring google's wishes and not paying ones mortgage, that would seem ridiculous.

And is accessing a url is a legally binding contract now, especially when nothing is signed or acknowledged by one or both parties when the url is accessed?

>And is accessing a url is a legally binding contract now, especially when nothing is signed or acknowledged by one or both parties when the url is accessed?

This is in no way comparable to using a companies API.

Really? Found this[0] link on a site listed on this topic thread.

And like blog posts written by people on various subjects, one might click the links, find something of value from accessing the link and decide to access it in an automated fashion without caring (Oh, it has api in the url! * doesn't think twice about it *) to bother to look for anything else because as far as they are concerned, they're getting what they need right there. Now if they run into rate limits and get blocked for x amount of time, its tough luck. But if one doesn't run into rate limits, and continue to uses such a link, should they expect the 2 am wake up call or expect to get kicked out of their home or face significant hardships in life because of it?

[0] http://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/geocode/json?sensor=fals...

They should expect to get cut off from accessing Googles API at any time if they are not operating within the bounds of whatever Google has deemed appropriate usage.

I agree with that statement, and I mentioned that possible scenario above which ended with that being "touch luck" on the person who decided to access the url in such fashion. But nowhere in those potential interactions (that do happen all the time and not just with google) in the above, magically create some legally binding contract between parties.

Now If it is 'malicious' enough for google to recognize the access, and trace down the source to get the DOJ to throw the book at the person/company, that is a different story that we have seen before…

> my first read of it makes it sound like grabbing Maps content in my art project is okay.

You only have to read as far as the beginning of the fourth paragraph to find: "Unless you have received prior written authorization [...] you must not: (a) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof..." etc.

You're not at all obligated to abide by an open source license that just happened to be bundled in with a bunch of files you downloaded.

The thing is, without that license, you're bound by copyright. That means you're not allowed to redistribute those files, or anything derived from them, at all without permission from the copyright holder, with the exception of uses allowed by fair use.

For source code and similar things, there's a default position which is highly restrictive, and the open source license loosens the restrictions. Nothing forces you to accept the license. It's just that you can do much less with the material if you don't.

Terms of Service are a completely different beast, because the default position is that you can use services that are mad public over the internet more or less however you feel like, as long as you don't violate copyright and such. The ToS then adds restrictions.

I think the point you make is an excellent one. However, we've seen court decisions that essentially equate ToS violations with wire fraud, no? I wonder where the line gets drawn...

> we've seen court decisions that essentially equate ToS violations with wire fraud, no?

I can only think of one, and it was overturned. Most of the others (that I can think of) have to do with an employee/employer relationship. Even the recent Craigslist case wasn't necessarily a case of ToS violation, because they were explicitly asked to C&D, but didn't.

And we've also seen antimonopoly actions against companies abusing their power position.

My point is simply that the two are not at all equivalent. An open-source license grants additional rights to the person receiving the license, while terms of service restrict the person receiving it. As such, there is no inconsistency whatsoever with saying that one should not be automagically bound by such things just because they clicked through them or they happened to be sitting on a web site that you use. It doesn't matter at all if you violate the terms of an open source license. All that means is that you don't enjoy the additional rights granted to you by that license. You can still enjoy all of the rights granted to you by normal copyright, which means that you can use your copy and make additional copies in ways covered by fair use. If you go beyond that, you're violating copyright, and that is the fundamental problem, not violating the license. Violating the license is only a problem when you want to use some of it (e.g. the permission to distribute derived works) but not other parts of it (e.g. the requirement to distribute source code).

Violating a license isn't illegal, only violating copyright is. I don't think there's an equivalent for terms of service for a freely-available service.

OK, so on the one hand there's white (or grey) hat cases, and on the other there's spammers and scammers. Both break the ToS.

I think a big difference is whether it's for commercial purposes, or has some evil motive. Eating KFC in McDonalds is probably breaking some rule, but no-one in their right mind would really care. Selling your own fried chicken in McDonalds is much more likely to lead to trouble. A political stunt is somewhere in between, but should generally be given a bit of lenience.

So I'd say it should be OK to use a script to automate some personal task. Creating a business which relies on breaching a ToS is both wrong and stupid. And while political hacks might be a bad idea, they might also be the right thing to do.

Here's the thing about the law - it's not quite black and white. A judge or jury will always consider the circumstances, when they decide what to do with you. The same is true about companies blocking you. Sometimes, you need to use common sense, and hope that other people do to.

I really don't see the difference. Either way you're agreeing to abide by a set of rules by the owner of the service. If you don't like their rules, use one of the alternatives.