CFAA Violation, TERMS of USE, Htacess Blocks

[PhDoc]

Northern California District Court (Craigslist v. 3taps, Inc.) has determine the use of proxy servers to circumvent IP address ban is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1030 (Fraud and Related Activity in Connection With Computers, also known as Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, also known as CFAA).

This being said, when picscout is banned via htaccess, and they come back later with one of those "Narcissistic Timmy Letters," is this not also a violation of CFAA?

If you have a clear and comprehensive TERMS of USE page on your site, have every page of that website labeled referring users to that TERMS of USE, have denied Getty and Picscout access to the site via robots.txt (made public), have blocked their domains via htaccess, and have blocked the entire country of Israel, what else can you do?

In other words, if website owners are willing to do the work, what can they do to tell Getty/Picscout/TimmyBaby to go pound sand? The way I see it, this has to go to court so Getty can be delivered a bloody nose and embarrassment.

Suggestions by anyone?

[lucia]

Northern California District Court (Craigslist v. 3taps, Inc.) has determine the use of proxy servers to circumvent IP address ban is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1030 (Fraud and Related Activity in Connection With Computers, also known as Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, also known as CFAA).

Read the details of the case. Craitlist sent 3Taps a very explicit cease and desist letter and blocked them.

This being said, when picscout is banned via htaccess, and they come back later with one of those "Narcissistic Timmy Letters," is this not also a violation of CFAA?

You probably need to send them a cease and desist letter first. Then, you need to know their IPs and block those. Then when you see them try to get around the block using proxies, you have to get evidence and file a suit making a claim under the CFAA.  At which point, you will have a complicated case. Meanwhile, I don't think it will directly affect the copyright claim. It could be that they can win their copyright claim and you can win your CFAA claim.

If you have a clear and comprehensive TERMS of USE page on your site, have every page of that website labeled referring users to that TERMS of USE, have denied Getty and Picscout access to the site via robots.txt (made public), have blocked their domains via htaccess, and have blocked the entire country of Israel, what else can you do?

That won't be enough. I'm pretty sure Craiglist tried the TOS and it wasn't enough.  Under the ruling you point to you need to send Picscout a cease and desist and identify their IPs and block those IPs.  You can't just do one, you need to do them all.

In other words, if website owners are willing to do the work, what can they do to tell Getty/Picscout/TimmyBaby to go pound sand? The way I see it, this has to go to court so Getty can be delivered a bloody nose and embarrassment.

Suggestions by anyone?

I have no idea how one would collect evidence that Picscout evaded IP blocks using proxies.  But if someone else figures out how to do it and they want to work at taking this to court, they can send the cease and desist, figure out the IPs and monitor to see if Picscout starts coming around using proxies.

[PhDoc]

Lucia, thanks for your response. Yes I forgot to mention the cease and desist, however I am aware of it.

This comes down to more than just copyright. All people need do is use the Google Advanced Image search to get a much better idea of what images might be used.

https://www.google.com/advanced_image_search

It comes down to an issue of rights. If you have someone stop by your house once per day to take a photograph, odds are you're going to become irritated. Even if the person is standing in the middle of the street, i.e. not your property, predatory laws work in your favor here. Odds are you can get a restraining order against the offending party.

We've come to accept the internet as one big block party where everyone is invited. Let's think about this. Exactly what does this type of "acceptance" do? It makes it easier for the law makers to avoid thinking about how to solve the very issue I'm talking about.

So, let's further presume we have a website where EVERY image is taken by the owner with a point 'n shoot. Picscout doesn't know this. The only thing Picscout knows is there's a website with images. The owner is in 100% legal compliance, and yet Picscout still scans her site. The owner puts up a TOS, blocks all known domains associated with Picscout, and forbids anyone who is not Google or Yahoo from crawling the site via robots.txt. AND... sends Getty/Picscout legal a CAD. Shouldn't this be enough to get the point across that they're not welcome?

This country needs a fight for usage rights. This fight is being avoided not because there's no precedent, however because it's "hard." People don't like doing anything "hard" because it upsets their thoughtless slumber. How do I know? I've taught thousands of students who don't like to do anything "hard."

The law is no different. We treat law like a "holy doctrine" when indeed it is not. It's what's currently written in the books due to arguments and requests by the majority (and some minority rich people, who are still the "small controlling majority").

My question now turns to legal doctrine, morality, and ought. We all know that what is currently accepted as legal is not necessarily ethical, and what's currently accepted as ethical is not necessarily legal.

Does anyone know of any person, entity or group currently voicing themselves to turn cyberspace into a better neighborhood?

Please believe I'm not being a smart a**. The problem is not Getty/Picscout. It's our legal system.

[lucia]

PhDoc,

Lucia, thanks for your response. Yes I forgot to mention the cease and desist, however I am aware of it.

This comes down to more than just copyright.

Of course the question of CFAA combined with copyright issues is more than just about copyright. It's about CFFA, which is not about copyright. If you are trying to figure out how to use CFAA as a way to "get" Getty Images or Picscout (or anyone)  you need to look to what courts have said about CFAA.

It comes down to an issue of rights. If you have someone stop by your house once per day to take a photograph, odds are you're going to become irritated. Even if the person is standing in the middle of the street, i.e. not your property, predatory laws work in your favor here. Odds are you can get a restraining order against the offending party.

But this has nothing to do with CFAA.  It sounds like you are worried about some sort of "trespass" issue. There may be one-- but that's not what CFAA is generally about.

The owner is in 100% legal compliance, and yet Picscout still scans her site. The owner puts up a TOS, blocks all known domains associated with Picscout, and forbids anyone who is not Google or Yahoo from crawling the site via robots.txt. AND... sends Getty/Picscout legal a CAD. Shouldn't this be enough to get the point across that they're not welcome?

Are you interested in the normative question about what 'should' be enough? Or are you asking what is enough under the CFAA? Because with respect to the latter, courts seem to say TOS violation is not enough.

This country needs a fight for usage rights. This fight is being avoided not because there's no precedent, however because it's "hard." People don't like doing anything "hard" because it upsets their thoughtless slumber. How do I know? I've taught thousands of students who don't like to do anything "hard."

Actually, the issue of whether violating TOS violations amounts CFAA violations is more complicated, and has been fought in legal cases like United States v. Drew  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Drew which ultimately ruled that TOS violations are not enough to trigger a CFAA violation.  That court rightly sets the bar for violating CFAA high. If they did not do so, I could decree "No one named andrew may visit my blog" and then if someone named Andrew visited, that would be a CFAA violation.  So the courts have been requiring more.

It can't be the case that TOS violations are CFAA violations in cases where we think they "should be" but not in other cases where we think they "shouldn't be". The rule has to be either they are or they aren't. It's best if they are not violations.

Please believe I'm not being a smart a**. The problem is not Getty/Picscout. It's our legal system.

I don't think you are being a smart a**. I just think you aren't familiar with what the CFAA says and how courts have interpreted it. I also think you haven't thought very long about how making violations of TOS a crime rather than a tort would pan out in real life. Despite saying the problem is not Getty/Picscout, you are only thinking about how to get them and not thinking about how tweaking the law to "get" them would really screw up our legal system and screw up the internet.

[PhDoc]

Perhaps an alternative.

Questionable current statistics indicate there are approximately 30,000,000 bloggers in the U.S. Let's presume one-third are "serious" bloggers, this brings us to 10,000,000. Of these serious bloggers, let's presume 10% actually care about their rights, this brings us to 1,000,000.

What would happen if someone started a group of United States Bloggers United by Dollars, i.e. USBUD. Cool, now we have a group. What would happen if USBUD initiated a "pre-legal" program wherein members contribute $100 to a savings account, and that such contribution would be held in the account, overseen by a legal authority. Interestingly, this brings us to a total of $10,000,000.

What would happen if the mission of USBUD was to use that $10,000,000 to do one of two things?

1. Hire lobbyists to go to Capital Hill exercising the Malcolm X approach of making noise until people listen; or

2. Use the $10,000,000 to delver 1-5 really, really, really good legal battles to Getty/Piscout.

Americans have more power than they can imagine. Their problem is they're mostly living in a post-traumatic stress society of learned helplessness.

When you have a giant who goes around bullying millions of little people, it's time for the little people to band in numbers to create their own giant. Personally, I'd be happy to contribute $100 to such a cause.

Make arrangements that, if no lobbying or legal battle against the giant takes place, then everyone can get their $100 back, with about $1 in interest. Actually, this works to give us a niftier name, the Giant 101 Equalizer Group.

When you put together that much money for a cause, it's like "locking and loading." You don't have to fire - you simply have to show your teeth.

In terms of legal battles, I know $10M isn't too much. I would live to see $100M, then everything would boil down to a simple question. Would the giant like to spend $100M across multiple fronts?

This is a matter of tactics, and when people think about tactics long enough, they eventually come up with a very good plan.

Food for thought.

[stinger]

PhDoc, I like the way you think!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'm liking this thinking as well!! One thing I will mention is that forget anything robots.txt.related, this file is simply a list of instructions for bots/spiders, ect... some clearly adhere to them, some clearly do not, and there is currently no law on the books regarding them, hence we go the extra steps of htaccess and blocking whole fracking counrty IP's

[PhDoc]

Did I mention the idea of appealing to the top 50 law schools in the US with a contest? Really simple, and it would only take $1,000,000 to work (that's $10 per blogger).

Offer $1,000,000 to any graduating attorney or attorneys who can find something, anything to bring Goliath down. Of course that something would have to be legal, that's why I like the idea of having lawyers do it.

Instinct tells me that all hot shot attorneys have one thing in common. It's the same thing all hot shot scientists have in common. They all want to cut their teeth on some big score that will get them noticed. That being said, how much attention would a newbie attorney from Stanford or Yale or Columbia get for being "the one" who brought down Goliath?

Let's think about this logically. Bringing down Goliath means:
1. $1,000,000
2. Stories published in every newspaper in the US and most likely many in Europe
3. The face of the attorney or attorneys in Time Magazine and Newsweek
4. Definite coverage by, with possible appearances on, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC
5. A really nifty book detailing how it was done, i.e. royalties for as long as the wave lasts
6. A MAJOR mention in legal journals everywhere
7. Something on a resume that no one else has
8. Top law firms in the US flying them on private jets for job interviews
9. A career starting like a rocket launch
10. And the best... someone in Hollywood will most certainly make a movie.

There are two major advantages to this plan vs. the prior plan. First, it's cheaper, and that's good. Second, and this is my favorite part, it uses the INFINITE energy of personal narcissism as fuel. Let's face it, what 25 year old new attorney would not want 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10?

Sometimes a little bit of money and a boat load of narcissism can work wonders.

[PhDoc]

My apologies. Scientists can do differential equations, but we can't add.

Plan 1, $100 each = $100M

Plan 2, $1     each = $1M

Sorry.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

>>  let's presume 10% actually care about their rights, this brings us to 1,000,000.

That's a pretty big assumption. I would bet the number is much closer to a few thousand.

[lucia]

>>  let's presume 10% actually care about their rights, this brings us to 1,000,000.

That's a pretty big assumption. I would bet the number is much closer to a few thousand.

He's also assuming that of all those who 'care about their rights', specifically care about the Getty issue and not some other right, that they'll all learn about the project, that they will read, understand and agree with the specific goals of the project. (Note: the project doesn't seem to have specific goals other than "Do something to hurt Getty Images".)  Also, that they will all trust the people running the project to do something worthwhile rather than just taking the money and going to Aruba. And so on.

Any project that starts with "raise $1 Million dollars", needs to think a little harder to figure out how they are going to raise $1 millions dollars.

Mind you, if PhDoc manages to do it: more power to him.

[PhDoc]

Jerry and Lucia. There's a reason why
1. Great CEOs create financial revolutions; and
2. Great scientists create revolutions in knowledge.

Neither yields to fear, neither waits to make a move, neither is afraid to come across as crazy, and both take enough risks that the odds eventually work in their favor.

Getty and PicScout and Timmy and the Ghostbusters watch this site like hawks, and you know it. Your ground rules take this very notion into consideration.

Have either of you ever heard the story of Sisyphus? Wonderful story.

Do either of you know what happens to those who need everything spelled out for them in nearly infinite perceptible order complete with diagrams, schematics and warranties?

NOTHING

This is not meant to be an offensive remark, however my students know me as blunt, and blunt I will be. Your line of reasoning leads to indentured servitude and defeat >90% of the time. Getty and PicScout are nothing. They are players in a much bigger game.

Why does this matter? To discover why, you must do what scientists do, and that is engage in a thought experiment.

Presume Getty goes unchallenged, and all the little "cogs" remain frightened and powerless. What message does this send to the next guy with a better idea for exploiting essentially the same concepts?

IF PEOPLE ARE COWARDLY AND STUPID ENOUGH TO LET ME GET AWAY WITH IT, THEN IT'S TIME TO TAKE THEM TO THE CLEANERS.

I've been teaching your young for 14 years. For the past 14 years they've gotten dumb and dumber and dumberer. They have no capacity to think. They leave college stupid, becoming teachers, and leading the next generation further into cerebral deficiency syndrome. Students are as cowardly as the rest of the population. They refuse to band together for fear that when they rise others won't and they'll be left holding the bag.

If you're concerned about what will happen with your $100M, then you need to THINK.

Why does the head of a major crime family sleep like a baby at night unworried about his money or his people? Easy. His money and his people are watched by anonymous watchers. Those watchers are watched by anonymous watchers. There are layers upon layers of watchers who are LOCKED AND LOADED to guarantee him sleep. The reason this system has worked for thousands of years is because it is driven by fear. The reason this system is unacceptable for the job at hand is because it wreaks of anti-ethics.

It's time for lawyers to do their jobs. Make this line of reasoning legal. Come up with a process. Engage the layers of watchers in the onion of control so it's ethical. But answer one question.

WOULD EVERY CHOICE YOU MAKE BE ETHICAL IF YOU KNEW YOU WERE NOT BEING WATCHED?

This is where integrity comes into play. As a matter of fact, my students know this question to be the ultimate test of integrity.

Again, I couldn't care less about Getty. Worst case scenario in any court battle someone pays $200 for a picture. BIG DEAL.

Be aware of one thing, however. Getty is watching you. Timmy is watching you. You know this to be true because your rules are built in such a way to prevent them from using anything against you. You fear them, and you know it. They know it too. That's why they’re still rattling the cages.

If you can engage in thought for just once, and come up with a means to make the $100M idea work, then Getty will have a problem, and they will begin to fear you. If you can raise the bar and turn this into a $1B idea, then ask yourself one question.

Would a company be ready to engage you in a legal battle that could essentially deplete them of 50% of their net worth? You see, that's power, it’s power money can't buy. In sending such a message to Getty, you're sending a much bigger message to any entity who would dare to exploit the people by turning the legal system into their own personal playground.

The message is... WE'RE LOCKED AND LOADED ON YOU, SO THINK TWICE.

The idea was not meant to hurt Getty. That notion is your own personal issues. The idea is the ultimate deterrent. It’s a game of brinksmanship this country has made popular over the past 50 years.

And it works.

I'm not afraid of Getty. I'm not afraid of PicScout.

What I am afraid of is people like you. Please watch what you say in this forum, this field of observation, this test of your resolve. YOU breed confidence for Goliath because you're saying EXACTLY what he wants to hear, and you weaken everyone in the process.

This is not a personal attack. It's an appeal to logic and reason and thought. Your mind interprets this as a personal attack because I’m confronting you head on with reason.

One last thing. Do you know what would have happened with this thread had you not sabotaged it with your doubts and criticism? Goliath would be more nervous today than he was three days ago. Good job. Be proud of yourselves.

You got my $5 donation. Go buy an ice cream cone. Ban me from the forum. Erase this post. Obliterate it to prove your power. But when Goliath comes banging on your door, just remember, you had an opportunity to make an insane idea work.

Do you know just how insane the notion of the atom was in 500 BC? Do you know how insane the notions of gravity was in 1600 AD? Do you know how insane the notion of subatomic particles was in 1880? Do you know how insane the notion of general relativity was in 1910? Do you know how insane the notion of an entire universe created by an exploding black hole was in 1970? Do you know how insane the notion of the demise of the know universe by a SUBatomic particle 126x the weight of a proton was in 2012?

Insane ideas are the stuff of legend.

My job and my passion are my students, i.e. your young. My job is to educate them and engage them in thought, to teach them logic, to get them to surmount their erroneous pre-conceived notions of self-limitation, to turn them into people who are capable of influence.

Please take your Goliath and your Getty and your Timmy and give them what they want - your indentured servitude.

PhDoc signing out permanently. The land of the ignorant smells wretched to me, and I refuse to be here.

[JLorimer]

PhDoc, your idea is intriguing.

I'm not one to feed trolls.

You say, "Neither yields to fear, neither waits to make a move, neither is afraid to come across as crazy, and both take enough risks that the odds eventually work in their favor." By "signing out permanently" at the first sign of questioning, you have only shown me that you are not a person who possesses these qualities and is not fit to lead the type of movement you have described.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Do you know what would have happened with this thread had you not sabotaged it with your doubts and criticism? Goliath would be more nervous today than he was three days ago. Good job. Be proud of yourselves.
...
PhDoc signing out permanently. The land of the ignorant smells wretched to me, and I refuse to be here.

So I question your math and you go off on a tirade, call me "ignorant" and then "sign off"? Seriously? Troll much?

Everyone has their own way of dealing with Stock Image extortionists. But I do get tired of people that have big ideas and show little action. If you want to raise your million dollars or hundred million dollars, by all means, go for it.

PhDoc, if you were a little more open to questions and exploration and a little less apt to completely shut down in the face of these questions or challenges, it would have been great to have you join the fight. But honestly, after your hissy fit, I only want to know one thing. I want to know where you teach so I can make sure my "young ones" never attend one of your classes.

[lucia]

JerryWitt,
My thought with PhDoc: Oh. My. I wonder how he response when funding agencies turn down his grant proposals because they are too vague?