Comment by Loquebantur
4 hours ago
You glaze over the fact, they stole the data to begin with and never recuperate their sources. That's not "reasonable".
They don't make it available "easily" either, they place all kinds of hurdles on it, including you having to pay for stolen goods.
You then go on, equating wildly different situations: on one hand, a multi-billion dollar company, easily able to set up such a scheme. On the other (me representing) the public, regularly anything but destitute.
So no, you're the unreasonable one here. So are they.
Search engines that obey robots.txt are stealing?
If someone does not want on a search engine index and they say not to index, and then get indexed anyhow is stealing.
But a “please read my content and make available to your users” then claim doing so is stealing seems a bit out there.
What am I missing?
There is a difference between "read my content and make it available to your users" and "make money by reading my content and making it available to your users". Terms of use like this are trying to say "we are the only ones who get to make money from this", and therein lies the problem.
Well said. I'm sure a subset of the content that Cloudflare has indexed also has terms like Cloudflares, that they happily ignored.