So long as their HTTP server responds to requests received from me, then it is "right" for me to perform whichever operations I choose with their response. Once data is on my machine, I get to decide how to process it, not them. If they don't want me to have their data, it is well within their rights not to provide it to me.
Why must the restriction be technical? This is the whole concept of an honor system. Why can't you use someone else's server under their (reasonable and clearly communicated) terms?
I could leave a bowl of candy on my desk with a sign that says "take one"-- there's nothing physically stopping you from taking the whole bowl, but that doesn't make it OK.
> Why can't you use someone else's server under their (reasonable and clearly communicated) terms?
Well, for one, clearly communicated to who, and when? Before I ever receive the first request, I cannot a priori know of any terms. Even afterwards, you're assuming that a person has read and comprehended the information, which is often not true. I suppose you'd say that's alright, but that when or if the terms are even comprehended, from that point forward they should be obeyed. I would still disagree, however. The crucial difference from your bowl of candy is that sending an HTTP request is a kind of speech act. Having those kind of terms on a web site fundamentally violates my right to apply whichever voltages across wires I own. A better analogy would be a company that sets up an automated mail-receiving machine that automatically sends a piece of candy--along with a printed ad, let's say--back to the originator. It wouldn't be right for such a company to demand that I open their reply in a certain way--for example, by requiring that I look at the ad that came along with the candy--because at that point, the candy and ad are mine, and if I wish to construct a candy-extracting machine that prevents me from seeing the ads, then that's my right.
