Timeline for Is it illegal to access content on website hidden by CSS
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2019 at 3:11 | comment | added | user4210 | @emory This could even fall under the concept of unsolicited goods, which pretty much all western countries allow you to keep, dispose of or use without payment - definitions.uslegal.com/u/unsolicited-goods In this case, while there was a request made, it was not for the full content, so receiving the full content may be considered unsolicited goods and the requirement to pay for them is void. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 2:08 | comment | added | emory | @Greendrake taking from honesty stalls without paying is theft, but taking wikitravel.org/en/Common_scams#Gifts_from_beggars without paying is not. In my opinion, this is more similar to a gift from a beggar than an honesty stall. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 1:45 | comment | added | user4210 | Equally, if the diner was to be offered a sample buffet on the understanding that they would get the full meal after paying, but were instead given a full meal at the sample buffet willingly by the restaurant, they would owe the restaurant nothing and would have broken no laws. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 1:44 | comment | added | user4210 | I also have to say that both the examples used in this answer are woefully inadequate- the question is better suited to an analogy that if the person went to a concert, was given access to a certain area by the concert organisers and told they could enter the actual concert if they paid, but in that area supplied they could experience the concert in full without paying, they owe the concert owners nothing and have broken no laws. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 0:50 | comment | added | user4210 | It's also worth noting that search engine bots do not always apply stylesheets when scraping the content, so are Google et al breaching laws all over the world each time their bots request a page and the hidden content is "read"? | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 0:40 | comment | added | user4210 | Blizzard lost the argument that circumventing a second process which prevented access to their games assets constituted a violation of the DMCA. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 0:37 | comment | added | user4210 | Take the case of MDY Indus. v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, 952. (9th Cir. 2010) - the court ruled that there was no effective control of access to the work as the work was sent unencrypted to the client and available unencrypted to the client from their hard disk. That's broadly similar to the question being asked here, in that the means of "effectively control access to the work" that Blizzard required to limit access required the client to apply that means, and the work was readily available if they did not. This failed the "effectively controls access to the world" test. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 0:26 | comment | added | user4210 | @Greendrake and indeed, there are multiple tools built into browsers already which cause the content to be displayed differently to how the website intended it to be - they are not illegal, the developer tools built in to browsers are not illegal, the settings allowing you to turn off CSS or replace stylesheets with your own are not illegal. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 0:24 | comment | added | user4210 | @Greendrake simple - they gave you the content. That's enough legal justification right there to allow you to read it. They willingly and voluntarily handed you the content when you requested the page - you are entitled to read everything they send you. The fact that they try to apply a style to it is neither here nor there - you are under no legal obligation to apply that style to the content you were sent. The fact that it takes some knowledge to do this is irrelevant - there is no law anywhere in the world requiring you, the recipient, to display a web page as the website intends. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 0:21 | comment | added | Greendrake | @Moo "they already gave you the content" They have delivered the content to your device, but it is normally under a veil, no matter how weak veil. Why does this make you think that being smarter than the most of their audience gives you the right to read the content if the website clearly did not intend to let you read it for free? | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 0:19 | comment | added | user4210 | Experts Exchange did this for years - obfuscating the real content by placing it below a lot of garbage, and requiring payment to access it. You know what their legal team said when their oh so secure content protection became well known on the internet (all you had to do to circumvent it was to scroll down)? "Stop doing that, it's stupid". So they stopped doing that. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 0:18 | comment | added | user4210 | @Patrick87 you aren't violating copyright, because they willingly sent you the content, the means is irrelevant because there is no legal or technical requirement for a client browser to implement the styles as requested, motive is irrelevant because it's not unlawful to want to save money - the only thing that stands up is the opportunity, and good luck arguing in a court of law that someone isn't legally allowed to read something you literally handed them under no duress. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 0:13 | comment | added | Patrick87 | @Moo It's not really all that different from just doing ANYTHING illegal. You have means (ignoring CSS), motive (save money) and opportunity (their error) and violated their rights (copyright, by violating communicated license terms) intentionally (mems rea). | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 0:06 | comment | added | user4210 | @Greendrake and yes, security considerations are relevant here - the site is attempting to pass off a style as a security measure, which wouldn't pass the sniff test in any prosecution or lawsuit. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 0:01 | comment | added | user4210 | @Greendrake they already gave you the content, you aren't taking anything. Your example there is completely different to what's being asked about here. | |
| Mar 15, 2019 at 23:58 | comment | added | Greendrake | @Moo security considerations are irrelevant here. Would you say that taking goods from honesty stalls without leaving money (or even taking money from them) is legal because there is no security? | |
| Mar 15, 2019 at 23:55 | comment | added | user4210 | @Greendrake yeah, I disagree with that, because every browser has the ability to turn CSS off, or replace the sites stylesheets with your own. CSS is not a security tool, and anyone arguing so should be laughed out of court and then laughed at some more. The site has already sent you the content, they just put some pretty styling around it that you, as owner of the browser, is fully and completely entitled to ignore. | |
| Mar 15, 2019 at 23:51 | comment | added | Greendrake | @Moo It's all about the intent. If one normally uses a browser that doesn't handle CSS (very rare event these days, isn't it?) then there is nothing unlawful about accessing the website with it, provided that the terms don't explicitly prohibit such browsers. But if you use that browser specifically to read content that the website wants you to pay for, you break the law. | |
| Mar 15, 2019 at 23:31 | comment | added | user4210 | Following on from my last comment - what about browsers that don't handle CSS? Are they unlawful according to the terms of the website? No. | |
| Mar 15, 2019 at 23:30 | comment | added | user4210 | Meh, the intention has nothing to do with it - they sent you the content, you can read it. If they don't want you to read it, they shouldn't send you the content. Experts Exchange tried this approach to game search engines - put the question at the top of the page, and underneath it put 50 obfuscated answers. Then a load more pointless content. And then, right at the bottom, 50 screens down, the unobfuscated answers. This is no different - the content has been delivered, you are free to use it. | |
| Mar 15, 2019 at 19:02 | comment | added | Kartik Soneji | Ah, yes, but it is very specifically mentioned in all the venue's advertising and Terms and Conditions, that I cannot enter the venue without paying for the ticket. The website on the other hand, is freely broadcasting the entire source of the webpage, with the full content, to anyone who asks for it (but not accidently. This is not a mistake, the site fully intends to do just that). What they do not intend is someone changing the CSS. Like if the performance can be seen very clearly from my apartment window, and I watch it from there, then there is nothing the venue can do about it. | |
| Mar 15, 2019 at 18:56 | comment | added | Kartik Soneji | For example, suppose I give you a paper to read. Half of the text is written in normal ink and the rest is written in invisible ink. I tell you that you can read the paper, but if you want me to make the invisible ink readable, you have to buy a solution that only I have. But, you discover that if you heat the paper, you can read the invisible ink. Is it illegal to do so without paying me? I could argue that I never wanted you to heat the paper. | |
| Mar 15, 2019 at 17:35 | history | answered | Greendrake | CC BY-SA 4.0 |