Show Posts
1
Getty Images Letter Forum / CFAA Violation, TERMS of USE, Htacess Blocks
« on: September 17, 2014, 12:44:04 PM »
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?
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?