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

An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

krrb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#101

Post by keithnoizu »

dshanahan wrote: post #89
keithnoizu wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've chatted with Craig before. He has helped us at greatnonprofits.org quite a bit in the past. Regardless of what business decisions the executives in charge of craigslist are making that does not somehow make Craig not a nice guy. In particular I respect his decision to not second guess or meddle with the judgement calls of the executives in charge of craiglist. I am sure if he has any disagreements with how they…

I've spoken with him too, very recently. It's my impression he's still actively answering support emails for CL (as in daily). No?

That is the impression I get. He comes to our annual events but I've been out of the country living the expat life and keeping expenses down . . . so you've likely spoken to him more recently than me. He talks with my CEO now and then and helps give her advice on growing our nonprofit and helping our consumers. Which we appreciate a lot.

I don't really follow his comments in the news and so on but everything I've gleaned first hand and second hand about the guy leaves me thinking that he's still a class act, and all around traditional geek.

As far as kribbr or whatever it is called goes . . . if there is a long history of litigious behavior from an organization and you go ahead with a business model that may spark a C&D don't act like your personal hero has stabbed you int he back. Whether the C&D was grounded or not how is it occurring a surprise. CL has every legal right to try to protect their business model to the extent allowed by the law. If you genuinely feel that they've over stepped it then fight it. Or come up with a business model that disrupts the space with out needing to leech off of what is already there.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#102

Post by rhizome »

tempestn wrote: post #100
rhizome wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They attempted to deal with the craigslist monopoly problem by providing an easy way for users to post on both craigslist and Krrb, for which they received the C&D. Is it unfair to observe that the way to create a new craigslist should not depend on content already posted on CL? Of course, if krrb or whoever was the source of the content which it then autoposted to CL, they would run afoul of the autoposting prohibit…

It's a tough question. If craigslist truly does have a monopoly, then it indeed might be fair for competitors to have some use of content already posted on craigslist. Also, in the case of Krrb it's the user posting the content, who owns the copyright to such content, using their own computer to copy it to Krrb. Krrb is simply providing a tool for them to do so more easily. That certainly seems like it should be acce…

Well, then lets cut to the chase: does Craigslist have a monopoly? If so, in what way are they using it illegally?

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#103

Post by tempestn »

rhizome wrote: post #102
tempestn wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tough question. If craigslist truly does have a monopoly, then it indeed might be fair for competitors to have some use of content already posted on craigslist. Also, in the case of Krrb it's the user posting the content, who owns the copyright to such content, using their own computer to copy it to Krrb. Krrb is simply providing a tool for them to do so more easily. That certainly seems like it should be acce…

Well, then lets cut to the chase: does Craigslist have a monopoly? If so, in what way are they using it illegally?

You can read 3taps' antitrust claims submission here: https://3taps.com/papers/3taps_Amended_Counterclaim.pdf

The 'Nature of the Case' section at the beginning provides their allegations regarding craigslist's monopoly. IANAL so I don't feel qualified to discuss the legal merits, although reading the claims they at least sound worth investigating.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#104

Post by tempestn »

potatolicious wrote: post #52
imgabe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is whose data is it? Padmapper just scraped whole site for apartment listings. This is an action by the user to take their post, which they wrote, and redisplay it somewhere else. If I write an ad for a chair I want to sell, I should be able to post it to Craigslist and any other site I want to. The Krrb button is no different than the user manually copying and pasting her own content into Krrb's posting…

I don't think this is what's happening here - for either Krrb or Padmapper. It's important to note that Krrb and Padmapper both make the distinction that they're scraping facts , not posts. One is copyrightable, the other is not. You can lay claim to the sentence "I have a room in a 2-bedroom apartment for rent in Williamsburg, going for $1500" But you do not have the right to own the fact that there's a room for ren…

Plus there needs to be a certain level of creative expression for copyright to apply, so even the sentence, "I have a room in a 2-bedroom apartment for rent in Williamsburg, going for $1500," would almost certainly not be copyrightable. (That said, some of the posts on craigslist are certainly creative, so copying the full contents of everything would likely violate copyrights, but as you say, that's not what Padmapper is doing. (Not to mention the copyrights on the individual posts belong to the users, not to craigslist, in any case.))

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#105

Post by tempestn »

smackfu wrote: post #65
imgabe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is whose data is it? Padmapper just scraped whole site for apartment listings. This is an action by the user to take their post, which they wrote, and redisplay it somewhere else. If I write an ad for a chair I want to sell, I should be able to post it to Craigslist and any other site I want to. The Krrb button is no different than the user manually copying and pasting her own content into Krrb's posting…

Do you think Craigslist would have any issue with an app that let you post to both Craigslist and Krrb?

Craigslist does not allow any app that automatically posts to craigslist, regardless of post quantity or frequency, so yes.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#106

Post by tempestn »

throwaway9848 wrote: post #50
acjohnson55 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you mean craiglist's users' content. Shouldn't the user have the right to do what they want with the classified ad they wrote?

Sure, they have the right to post their content anywhere they want, but after that it's CL's. Same is true with comments, posts on discussion/Q&A sites, etc.

Actually, that is only true if craigslist asserts an exclusive copyright to the content, which except for a three-week period last summer, they do not.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#107

Post by wavefunction »

_delirium wrote: post #58
x0x0 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

craigslist is far from profit maximizing. That's part of why craigslist's users tend to love it.

And that's also precisely what a lot of the CL scrapers want to go after— try to pick up money that CL is leaving on the table.

I'm not sure if I should vote you down or up, as I can't tell if you're in favor of scrapers "pick[ing] up money that CL is leaving on the table."

On the one hand, you're correct in identifying the scrapers' intent, on the other its an ugly sentiment and the sort of thinking I would prefer to discourage if you are advocating for it.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#108

Post by IanDrake »

stan_rogers wrote: post #98
SilasX wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't krrb just doing what you said they have the right to do "posting the same content elsewhere"?

It's not merely "the same content", it is content automatically sourced from Craigslist, and while that may seem like a picayune distinction, it is not.

It's not automatic. A user has to click a button on his bookmark bar for it to happen.

CL seems to have a stone age version of automatic. A cave man would think a cigarette lighter automatically creates fire, but it just technology that's improved.

Instead of rubbing sticks together for a half hour we can make fire with flick of our thumb. We still had to do something.

Higher productivity != automation and shouldn't be used as an arbitrary measure of legality.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#109

Post by _delirium »

wavefunction wrote: post #107
_delirium wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's also precisely what a lot of the CL scrapers want to go after— try to pick up money that CL is leaving on the table.

I'm not sure if I should vote you down or up, as I can't tell if you're in favor of scrapers "pick[ing] up money that CL is leaving on the table." On the one hand, you're correct in identifying the scrapers' intent, on the other its an ugly sentiment and the sort of thinking I would prefer to discourage if you are advocating for it.

It was mostly just an observation. I think the situation is that CL is not currently milking everything to the last penny, and other people see those pennies laying there tantalizingly, so want to build some milking apparatus on top of CL's pasture, to mix metaphors.

To the extent that I have opinions about it, probably mildly negative. I'm skeptical of the view that anything you can possibly monetize is automatically a good idea.

Post reply on HN