To be fair, I don't see any user agreement on GTC (my corporate agency is GTC-powered) that prevents whatever it is KVS is doing.

Furthermore, the whole web/screen scraping argument....I don't think there is a legal definition of it if the best definition is from Wikipedia.

To KVS' point, it is a tool. The donor is the one using it. The donor is the one that has to register for a GTC account with/without permission from the host GTC agency.

However, KVS's argument that it is a "specialized" web browser is also flawed in that it obscure parts of the website and by using it, already puts the donor in violation of the site agreement.

For example, the timetable data is based of amadeus.net. 8.2 in the the Terms of Use states "You agree that you will not remove, obscure, make illegible or alter any notices or indications of the intellectual property rights and/or of Amadeus’ rights and ownership thereof."

A regular web browser will not remove the links to the Terms of Use. KVS Availability Tool does. And I don't think KVS can hide behind the "it's a tool argument" as this tool obscure the link to the Terms of Use to begin with limiting the donor's ability to make an informed decision on whether the underlying terms of use are being violated.

In my opinion, what is the most clear cut that KVS' action is criminal is that the person/company behind KVS implicitly encouraged donors to sign up for unauthorized GTC accounts by sending out the "how to obtain GTC account" email as "unauthorized access" is much more easily defined legally than web/screen scraping.