Can demonstrable ignoring of robots.txt help the cases of copyright infringement lawsuits against the "AI" companies, their partners, and customers?
Maybe worth contacting law enforcement?
Although it might not actually be Amazon.
Or, folks failing the 'shared security model' of AWS and their stuff is compromised with botnets running on AWS.
Or, folks that are quasi-spoofing 'AmazonBot' because they think it will have a better not-block rate than anonymous or other requests...
* There is knowledge that the intended access was unauthorised
* There is an intention to secure access to any program or data held in a computer
I imagine US law has similar definitions of unauthorized access?
`robots.txt` is the universal standard for defining what is unauthorised access for bots. No programmer could argue they aren't aware of this, and ignoring it, for me personally, is enough to show knowledge that the intended access was unauthorised. Is that enough for a court? Not a goddamn clue. Maybe we need to find out.
Quite the assumption, you just upset a bunch of alien species.
(But again, I don't know UK law.)
The last part basically means the robots.txt file can be circumstantial evidence of intent, but there needs to be other factors at the heart of the case.
<https://www.imperva.com/legal/website-terms-of-use/>
Many, many, many hits for this or similar language:
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22By+accessing+this+Site%2C+you+a...>
Mind: just because it's written doesn't mean it's enforceable, but to argue that what you've just denied isn't a widely-used premise of online contracts of adhesion fails the simplest empirical test.