In other words, if X has a public API and Nitter is using it, then neither Nitter themselves nor the Nitter users have to agree to any terms of service in order to do so.
X cannot expect anyone to behave in accordance with terms and conditions they never agreed to.
That's not true. Publicly available source code with licenses dispute your claim.
Using software with specific licenses? Or making modifications to it?
That is substantially different from reading the public APIs.
Copyright law applies to all citizens whether or not they've agreed to a contract.
Funny enough SpaceX just ignores copyright law a lot of the time by refusing to comply with some of the GPL licenses for their dishy firmware. I think Tesla does as well to some degree. They generally publish some code but not the complete corresponding source code for the firmware they actually ship.
• Unequal Bargaining Power: A large gap in power or knowledge between a large corporation and an individual consumer or employee.
• Lack of Meaningful Choice: "Take-it-or-leave-it" adhesion contracts where the weaker party cannot negotiate any terms.
None of these so-called "agreements" should bind people. There is no actual agreement or "meeting of the minds." It's just one party writing one-sided rules that only they get to enforce.
Companies are perfectly entitled to tell people they aren't allowed to use their services anymore. That's what the C&D was. It's perfectly legal to say "here's an API anyone can use, except you, Anish Kapoor."
It's like if Reddit bans you, you aren't entitled to use the site after they've told you you're banned. Even if you can find a technical means around the ban, it's still trespass.
I would say that you are not allowed to use their site as a logged in user (i.e. upvoting, downvoting, commenting, making posts).
It does not seem logical to me that Reddit could "ban" anyone from using their public frontends as anonymous users.
They could only do something like that, in my opinion, if access to all their content was gated behind a login.
Don't give Reddit ideas.
If I ban you from my house and you show up in disguise, you may be able to get in, but you are still not entitled to be there.
It's already there:
"By using the Services, you state that: . . . You have not been permanently suspended or removed from the Services."
They have in other ways, too: "No one under 13 is allowed to use or access the Services." That's literally a prohibition from using Reddit, even anonymously.
Furthermore,
> By accessing or using our Services, you agree to be bound by these Terms. If you do not agree to these Terms, you may not access or use our Services
That right there already says you're legally prohibited from using Reddit, even without logging in, if you don't agree to the terms. It's like how I can say "if you don't agree with the rules of my house, you aren't allowed inside."
Why do you think you have a legal right to use someone's service if you don't abide by their rules? Because they "left their front door unlocked"?
Judge: "do you agree to the terms?"
"No"
Judge: "then you can't use the API"
"But look at all the downvotes this is getting! You're wrong Mr. Judge!"
That is the purpose of public APIs. Usage without prior agreements.
If the API providers want to restrict the usage of their APIs, they are free to make them non-public.
Even if both parties agree to them, are there any legal consequences for breaking the terms of service?
Public as in being visible to all is not the same as public as in allowing use by all. You appear to be conflating the former definition with the latter. For example, my front door is visible to all, but a person isn't allowed to walk into my house without permission.
It's a totally different thing.
And if the entity operating it does not want public to use it, they need to make it non-public.
An API may be considered to be a specification or even an implementation of a specification, and you can look at a specification, implement a specification, and even look at an implementation of a specification all without using the implementation of the specification to extract data from behind the curtain.
Anyway, public things and spaces often disallow specific uses or uses by specific people. Like a park where you're not allowed to take your dog. Access is not the same as permission.
> The person is allowed to walk to your door.
Not if you notify them of a restraining order saying otherwise. We have a number of social and legal constructs facilitating the establishment of situationally-adaptive permission boundaries.
Where's the limit of that? Can I have port 443 open with a website behind it but sue anyone that accesses it because the fact that it being visible doesn't mean that I allow anyone to access it?
The very obvious answer is that penalty is commensurate with suitable advance notice of authorization limits. It's why there are rules about things like how to post "no trespassing" signs when access boundaries are not otherwise clear. But you're also allowed to notify and make someone leave your property if they wander in.
> but sue anyone
There are two very different kinds of "sue anyone". There's sue them to extract resources from them and there's sue them to make them stop. This is the latter not the former. Treating them as though they aren't wildly different is an error.
You effectively just asked whether I should be allowed to escort someone off my property without harm if they accidentally enter it. Yes, because it doesn't harm them in relation to what they didn't know in advance.
If you have entered into the contract and are even party to it in the first place, which is not clear in this case and is likely going to be one of the questions litigated here.
Sort of. Depends on the jurisdiction, and it's not always the case. That's why this is likely to be one of the core topics litigated in this case.
Nobody on HN is going to know the answer here at this point.
This being the whole idea behind lawfare. If you can’t afford to prove that you’re right, the guy that doesn’t notice the cost can financially drain you to get his way, since the law itself, nor the enforcement of the same, wasn’t ever really the point.