CL's C&D letter probably demanded they refrain from such, ah, workarounds, and courts take a dim view of such cat's paw tactics. The correct action in this case would have been to stop scraping CL and republishing their adverts. CL doesn't own the market but they do own their own traffic and publishing platform.
I'm not sure how a website can "own its traffic" since traffic is users hitting the site. Certainly an interesting perspective though. As the web continues to alter it's fundamental model to be more established-business-friendly, the conceptualization of the platform's features become more in-line with the idea of private ownership, where no such ownership actually exists, at least in classic architecture and legal definition. (excluding this case which has set the precedent).
It's quite clear that this ruling is a mistake in the long term, I mean, if you think about it beyond the confines of a single business's perspective. Even then, I'm sure that this is a boneheaded move for any business, long-term. It's clear that relying on legal frameworks instead of technological frameworks is a recipe for business disaster. If you don't want that person to have access to your site, you don't serve the data. The defendant in this case requested the data, and the plaintiff served it. I'm sure if the defendant had comparable legal counsel, the ruling would have been different. I can think of many allegories that can symbolize why this is a bad idea. But I think the most clear indication that this is .. for lack of a better word.. pathetic, is that it's 2013 and we're talking about IP blacklisting. This is another example why China continues to eat our lunch.
I'm sure if the defendant had comparable legal counsel, the ruling would have been different.
Unlikely. You do not have an automatic right to content just because you can access it. If a website operator says that you, AsymetricCom, are no longer welcome to visit their website, that is their right as owners of that business property. Changing your username or IP address may allow you to circumvent their ban, in the same way that wearing a disguise may make it possible for you to enter a shopping mall that you've been banned from, but you're still in breach of the owner's lawful order to stay off their property.
As I've said before, just because it's easy doesn't mean you have the right to do it. Put yourself in the position of the injured website operator; do you want the right to ban people from your website if they persistently abuse it? O course you do, same as any business reserves the right to refuse admission/service to troublemakers.
You've completely missed my point and feel that reiterating the same point over and over will somehow change my mind. If you can't be bothered to read or address the points I proposed, then why did you even bother submitting a response?
Are you suggesting that the rule of law is a bad idea?("This is...why China continues to eat our lunch"). I think legal frameworks are more tractable: a "Photography not allowed" sign, with enforcement is a more elegant solution to more technological ones (anti-photography/reflective coating maybe?)
