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

401–410 of 465 posts

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#401

Post by rprasad »

icebraining wrote: post #271
adunsmoor wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you go with the "it's not their data" argument Craigslist would seem to own the specific compilation of the data. I'd apply the same copyright principle as phone books or encyclopedias. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html Craigslist invested in the infrastructure to enter, store, and display this information. They should be able to set their terms as to how it is used in aggregate.

You should read that link: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a compilation work such as a database must contain a minimum level of creativity in order to be protectable under the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court (...) held that Rural's white pages are not entitled to copyright protection, since the white pages did not meet the statutory requirement for originality under 17 U.S.C. §102(a). Cragslist is completely auto…

You're right, sweat of the brow is irrelevant, which is why it is irrelevant that their process is now automated. The copyrightable aspects are in the collection, selection, and presentation of data, which is not required by law to be performed manually.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#402

Post by rprasad »

IanDrake wrote: post #162
ig1 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I could write something illegal (libelous, inciting a crime, etc) and assign copyright to you without your consent .

Ok, but then I wouldn't later claim ownership of it as Craigslist has (implying they have consented).

Craigslit does not claim ownership. Craiglist claims it has a license. They are completely different things. Craiglist is enforcing its license to the post. Ownership of the post itself is, and always has been, with the original poster.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#403

Post by cwp »

runako wrote: post #338
cwp wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The listing data that is presented and rendered on Padmapper's site isn't linked (e.g. the price & # of bedrooms). That is, I don't have to click a link to go to the original site to view the content. Padmapper does link to images, but Padmapper would be useless if it didn't also re-publish the content jacked from Craigslist.

Copyright doesn't apply to data. Only the text posted to CL is protected, and Padmapper isn't using that.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#404

Post by rprasad »

learc83 wrote: post #359
ChuckMcM wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you, but I don't know if the courts will agree with your interpretation. The reason for that is that the courts will look at the consequence of having that interpretation widely accepted and the impact on the current state of affairs. There are many many places where this has been litigated and the courts always come down on the side of the data aggregator owning rights to the data aggregated. If PadMapper wan…

>If they can prove that the listing owner asked them to list their property, Craigslist can't sue. Look at the Rightshaven case. The judge ruled that Rightshaven didn't have standing to sue on behalf just because the copyright holder granted it license to. If that theory holds up, Craigslist wouldn't have standing to sue on behalf of the copyright holders. Additionally copyright would only apply if the listings are c…

That is not what the Righthaven court said.

Righthaven did not have a copyright, it had a "right to sue" on behalf of the original copyright holder's copyright. The court deemed that insufficient to give Righthaven grounds to enforce the copyright, because Righthaven did not have any copyright or license therein. A right to sue is not considered a "copy right" because it involves no right to copy the material (i.e., by distribution or reproduction).

Craiglist does have a license to copyrighted content. It can actually "copy" the content. Ergo, it has the right to enforce its license against non-licensed users.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#405

Post by learc83 »

rprasad wrote: post #395
learc83 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, they've pretty much run every newspaper classified out of business. Consumers have no choice but to do business with craigslist if they want to list something in a classified.

People could always post to padmapper...directly. Or sell on Ebay...Or post it to the various subreddits...Or to local newspaper's community boards... There is nothing forcing people to use Craiglist. They are not a monopoly, nor do they act like one.

Just because they have competitors doesn't make those competitors viable. Apple and Linux still existed when Microsoft was prosecuted by the DOJ.

The vast majority of people searching classified ads are searching craigslist, therefore if you're trying to list something in a classified ad, you're forced to use craigslist.

Sure you could use another service, but Netscape could have also just sold browsers only to Linux customers. It's all about the numbers.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#406

Post by rprasad »

dredmorbius wrote: post #351
adestefan wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also pretty confident that if it was the opposite (PadMapper suing Craigslist for using PadMapper data), then most people would be cheering on PadMapper.

Craigslist makes use of both Google Maps and Yahoo Mapquest to present locations of individual properties through links on the CL site. Note that these are free links, not paid-for API calls. Who's free-riding whom?

Craiglist provides links to Google and MQ, which is the basis of how the Internet and WWW works. Craiglist supplies the actual address data.

It would be different if Craiglist embedded the maps from GM or MQ, but in such case CL would probably do so with permission from those companies (possibly even--gasp--paying for the right to embed maps).

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#407

Post by SilasX »

icebraining wrote: post #271
adunsmoor wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you go with the "it's not their data" argument Craigslist would seem to own the specific compilation of the data. I'd apply the same copyright principle as phone books or encyclopedias. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html Craigslist invested in the infrastructure to enter, store, and display this information. They should be able to set their terms as to how it is used in aggregate.

You should read that link: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a compilation work such as a database must contain a minimum level of creativity in order to be protectable under the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court (...) held that Rural's white pages are not entitled to copyright protection, since the white pages did not meet the statutory requirement for originality under 17 U.S.C. §102(a). Cragslist is completely auto…

>Cragslist is completely automated. There's absolutely no creativity involved.

Whoa whoa whoa, the coding of the site didn't involve a species of creativity?

If you mean that the content of a posting didn't involve creativity on Craigslist's part, you'd be on firmer ground, but even there they made design decisions (however questionable...) about how to present it.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#408

Post by lobotryas »

learc83 wrote: post #363
lobotryas wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The individual posts belong to the users, that is true. However one post alone is worthless. What's valuable is Craigslist's collection of posts with lots of relevant data (location, description, price, etc). This collection belongs to Craigslist because their servers provide the environment for it, plus they wrote the architecture and back-end to support it.

See my answer to mikeryan's post above for information on why that is not necessarily the case. An individual phone number is worthless as well, the collection is valuable. But case law says a phonebook isn't covered by copyright.

I see two problems with your argument:

1) You are comparing physical media to a web service

2) You are confusing content with access to content

Since you mentioned Phonebook, let's take yellowpages.com This site has much of the same information that a phonebook does. I would argue that it would be illegal for company B to scrape yellowpages.com for this information in order to make money without express permission from yellowpages.com. However, if Company B found another way to access the same information (ex: scanning physical phonebooks or asking people to sign up to their site) then I'd say they're within the law.

Craigslist is 100% within their rights to control who accesses their service and how. If CL users want to register for Padmapper and post the same ads on both services then that's their prerogative.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#409

Post by jacoblyles »

205guy wrote: post #324

I'm rather tired of all the sanctimonious, edgier-than-thou commenters and bloggers who keep saying CL has a "shitty UI." And that't not just because I like it (it's clean, simple, and easy to use). I totally agree that it could be improved, and maps do make it easier, but the CL interface never breaks or gets in the way the way an actual shitty UI does. Also, I think a lot of complainers are not aware of what it tak…

The millions of people who use padmapper every month seem to think it is a preferable experience to going on Craigslist, trying to figure out if Mountain View is a "Peninsula" or "South Bay" city, and then discovering the wonderful diversity of places that humans will call "Mountain View" one listing at a time.

Re: Craigslist Suing Padmapper

#410

Post by learc83 »

res0nat0r wrote: post #380
learc83 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the user isn't posting a creative work just a statement of fact, it doesn't what the user says--it's not protected by copyright. >the TOS also grants CL the right to prevent others from displaying it without CL's permission. Just because the ToS says it doesn't mean it will work. Recently a judge said that a copyright troll called Rightshaven didn't have standing to sue on behalf of copyright holders for works tha…

Assemblages of fact are protected by copyright tpateck has commented in the previous threads on Padmapper about this. This is why a Farmers Almanac is under copyright and I cannot wholesale copy a phonebook or Encyclopedia Britannica without infringing their rights. Regarding Righthaven, the original media company never gave Righthaven control of the copyright of their data, just the right to sue. This is why it was…

See Feist v. Rural

Phone books are not protected by copyright unless there is something original about their selection or organization.

Assemblages of fact aren't protected, only the selection and arrangement of those facts. In addition the selection and arrangement has to be "creative."

The selection is definitely not a creative act on craigslist's part b/c they don't select anything, users post the information.

Craigslist posting selection is nonexistent. Therefore they are only left with "creative" arrangement for protection.

You could argue that the arrangement is a creative act. I don't think the arrangement counts because they are only using a subset of craigslist and that is merely arranged by geographical location, definitely not an original "creative" arrangement, but it doesn't matter because Padmapper isn't copying the arrangement.

See this for more information. http://www.copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html

>Regarding Righthaven, the original media company never gave Righthaven control of the copyright of their data, just the right to sue. This is why it was struck down.

The judge in the Righthaven case said this...

"Because the SAA (lawsuit contract) prevents Righthaven from obtaining any of the exclusive rights necessary to maintain standing in a copyright infringement action, the court finds that Righthaven lacks standing in this case,"

Craigslist ToS doesn't grant them exclusive rights, thus by that judge's definition they don't have standing to sue.

Post reply on HN