Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Craigslist Suing Padmapper

gigaom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 465 posts

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#311

Post by malandrew »

pg wrote: post #210

Craig Newmark said on Quora that the reason they didn't like people building stuff on top of Craigslist was simply the extra bandwidth they consumed: http://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-anyone-built-any-products-on-... But now that 3Taps has found an ingenious way to get at the data with zero extra bandwidth cost to Craigslist (by retrieving it from the Google cache rather than CL itself), it's clear that what Craigslist…

FWIW, the legal basis of suing because of bandwidth and server load is called a trespass to chattels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_chattels

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#312

Post by eli »

mnicole wrote: post #299
eli wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right. And if you want your data to be reposted on another site, then you should repost it. Craigslist is delivering exactly what it its users signed up for (no more no less). People posting ads on Craigslist do not necessarily want or intend for it to be reposted on other sites.

> And if you want your data to be reposted on another site, then you should repost it. I had to giggle a little bit at this in the grand scheme of the internet, sorry. When I posted something on Facebook Marketplace, I started getting emails and comments from other "market" sites that Facebook had cross-posted my listing to. While it was annoying to not know this up front, the fact that it was more visible and gettin…

Personally, I'd prefer if Facebook acted a little more like Craigslist with my data, not the other way around.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#313

Post by binarysolo »

sulife wrote: post #224
pg wrote: post #210

Craig Newmark said on Quora that the reason they didn't like people building stuff on top of Craigslist was simply the extra bandwidth they consumed: http://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-anyone-built-any-products-on-... But now that 3Taps has found an ingenious way to get at the data with zero extra bandwidth cost to Craigslist (by retrieving it from the Google cache rather than CL itself), it's clear that what Craigslist…

Just like they try to keep the facade up that CL barely makes money. They are swimming in so much $ it's insane.

For the immense value they provide to the hundreds of millions of users, having a 100-200M revenue is not "swimming in [insane] $".

They're profitable alright, but let's not kid ourselves that they have by choice left a LOT of money on the table, which is why all these value-added services are trying to take a share of the CL-pie.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#314

Post by eli »

ameasure wrote: post #297
warfangle wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You automatically grant and assign to CL, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant and assign to CL, a perpetual, irrevocable, unlimited, fully paid, fully sub-licensable (through multiple tiers), worldwide license to copy, perform, display, distribute, prepare derivative works from (including, without limitation, incorporating into other works) and otherwise use any content that you post. You…

And you automatically grant Craigslist your first born child and all future earnings and your left index finger. Laywers love to fill these things with unenforceable outlandish crap. The courts are more discerning.

Err, that's actually a very reasonable Terms of Service.

It says that you own everything you post, but you are granting them the rights to use it. The only unusual bit is that you are additionally granting them the right to go after people who scrape your content on your behalf.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#315

Post by ceejayoz »

scotty79 wrote: post #305
ceejayoz wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting to Craigslist isn't a Constitutional right. Don't agree with the terms? Don't post there. No one's coercing.

They have a public interface. I'm using it without agreeing to anything. They can't make me agree by presenting me with checkbox. They can't prevent me from using their interface if I don't agree. On the other hand I can't make them actually publish the information I entered or keep them to their word on anything they declare. It's not what lawers like but that's how internet works.

> They can't make me agree by presenting me with checkbox. They can't prevent me from using their interface if I don't agree.

False. From the EFF: https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-t...

> Given the emphasis placed on a user’s assent, courts favor finding a binding agreement where the user engages in affirmative conduct acknowledging the terms of a TOS. For instance, a genuine clickwrap agreement, in which a service provider places a TOS just adjacent to or below a click-button (or check-box), has been held to be sufficient to indicate the user agreed to the listed terms. In these cases, requiring the user to click “I Agree,” after calling attention to the terms and affording the user an opportunity to review them, demonstrates the user agreed to the terms. However, courts generally do not require that you actually have read the terms, but just that you had reasonable notice and an opportunity to read them.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#316

Post by eli »

pg wrote: post #306
eli wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right. And if you want your data to be reposted on another site, then you should repost it. Craigslist is delivering exactly what it its users signed up for (no more no less). People posting ads on Craigslist do not necessarily want or intend for it to be reposted on other sites.

"People posting ads on Craigslist do not necessarily want or intend for it to be reposted on other sites." That argument appears to be invalidated by Craiglist's own terms of use, which say that when you upload a listing to Craigslist they can syndicate it wherever they want ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4287519 ).

Well, that's a fair point, but I don't think that right matters much unless and until they exercise it. A better argument (against myself) is that they're apparently willing to sell some type of access to your posts for use on mobile apps.

Still, I think there's something admirable in the simplicity and transparency of interacting with Craigslist. What you see is pretty much exactly what you get.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#317

Post by cwp »

runako wrote: post #242
Flimm wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just means that the users of Craiglist grant them an unlimited license. The users still own the copyright, though.

Where does Padmapper's license to the listing data originate? When do the posters of listings grant Padmapper a license of any kind?

You don't need a license to link to something.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#318

Post by res0nat0r »

ataggart wrote: post #277
res0nat0r wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The users of CL never agreed to let you copy their postings to whatever website you feel like, also it is against their TOS to do so: Any copying, aggregation, display, distribution, performance or derivative use of craigslist or any content posted on craigslist whether done directly or through intermediaries (including but not limited to by means of spiders, robots, crawlers, scrapers, framing, iframes or RSS feeds)…

The notion that I am bound by whatever legalese someone happens to put on their publicly accessible website is absurd in the extreme; I am not the one checking the box to submit a post. CL is perfectly able to restrict read-access to those who agree to the terms, e.g., by requiring registration. That they choose not to is their choice , and the state should not be used as a substitute bludgeon whenever they dislike t…

This makes no sense. You agree to the TOS when you post information to CL, not when you are just browsing for listings; that submitted information is what is bound by the TOS above. Also if you aren't the one checking the agree box, who is?

From what you've written above it sounds like you believe any contract between two parties is absurd in the extreme.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#319

Post by huckleberries21 »

mikescar wrote: post #75
ericd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, they were pretty steadfast about offering only a mobile license and not being willing to talk about anything.

So because the private licensing terms offered were not optimal for PadMapper, it follows that PadMapper should just ignore their public licensing altogether?

You seem to be straining with "not optimal" phrasing here. It was only for mobile apps. PadMapper is a website. Non-starter.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#320

Post by fleitz »

debacle wrote: post #308
warfangle wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You automatically grant and assign to CL, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant and assign to CL, a perpetual, irrevocable, unlimited, fully paid, fully sub-licensable (through multiple tiers), worldwide license to copy, perform, display, distribute, prepare derivative works from (including, without limitation, incorporating into other works) and otherwise use any content that you post. You…

Hadn't actually dug into the ToS, but the bit: > You also expressly grant and assign to CL all rights and causes of action to prohibit and enforce against any unauthorized copying, performance, display, distribution... Seems to be vital to this case.

Yes, the key point would be unauthorized, CL is going to have to prove that the PadMapper's usage was unauthorized (by the owner of the data)
Post reply on HN