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

71–80 of 109 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#71

Post by thekevan »

res0nat0r wrote: post #17
jmduke wrote: post #3

It's important to note that this is, at first glance, a different beast than the padmappers/3Taps issues, which were primarily about scraping craigslist data and placing it on a different site. Krrb has users press a button, which scrapes a given post. The end result is the same -- the same data as Craigslist being displayed on a different site -- but this is coming from the Krrb users' own volitions, which I think m…

I think this is the same issue as Padmapper, just on a much smaller scale. Don't write code that will re-display/re-post content of a Craigslist post on your 3rd party website. I bet if the button were changed to just cut/paste an html link to .craigslist.org/post all would be well. This is just CL trying to keep their postings exclusive to their website of which they've spent many a time and money trying to build an…

>Don't write code that will re-display/re-post content of a Craigslist post on your 3rd party website.

The difference being it is it would be a Craigslist post I wrote and would contain photos I took. Those words came from my head, so are you saying Craigslist owns the copyright to them as soon as I submit the ad and thus I cannot post that content elsewhere?

As the article said, Krrb is not scraping or even visiting Craigslist. The data gets to Krrb on the volition of the user who posted to Craigslist.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#72

Post by natch »

The big red flag here is the author splitting hairs about the copied content being "factual data." This tells me he is insincerely attempting to navigate a perceived loophole. Anyone who has visited "Best of Craigslist" (http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/all/) will see that there is a ton of creativity there, not just factual data. This goes for classifieds posts as well.

And yes it is the user's content but it is posted on CL subject to the TOS.

Put yourself in CL's shoes: they have to defend not only against "fledgling startups" but also against deep pocketed companies like Yahoo that sometimes buy fledgling startups. They cannot leave their service vulnerable to the whims of any parasitical company that would come along and attempt to exploit their users, their community, and their users' content.

Another piece that Krrb is pretending to ignore is that the users only take the initiative to post in the first place because of the good will and critical mass that Craigslist has, with long investment and significant sacrifice, been able to create. Leveraging third party services is a time honored model for startups, but a startup founder should not expect a free pass if they try to do so in an abusive manner that induces users to violate the TOS.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#73

Post by IanDrake »

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.

>but after that it's CL's

If that were true then CL would be liable for their content. If a pimp posts a message and CL owns it, then CL is responsible for pimping. When state AG's have pressed this issue, CL claims they don't own the message.

They can't have it both ways.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#74

Post by falcolas »

thekevan wrote: post #71
res0nat0r wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the same issue as Padmapper, just on a much smaller scale. Don't write code that will re-display/re-post content of a Craigslist post on your 3rd party website. I bet if the button were changed to just cut/paste an html link to .craigslist.org/post all would be well. This is just CL trying to keep their postings exclusive to their website of which they've spent many a time and money trying to build an…

>Don't write code that will re-display/re-post content of a Craigslist post on your 3rd party website. The difference being it is it would be a Craigslist post I wrote and would contain photos I took. Those words came from my head, so are you saying Craigslist owns the copyright to them as soon as I submit the ad and thus I cannot post that content elsewhere? As the article said, Krrb is not scraping or even visiting…

> The data gets to Krrb on the volition of the user who posted to Craigslist.

How does Krrb verify this? How does Krrb ensure that it's the post's author, and not some random bot hitting executing their javascript in an effort to scam users?

> Craigslist owns the copyright to them as soon as I submit the ad and thus I cannot post that content elsewhere?

You absolutely have that right. It's your data, you can re-post it wherever you like. However, Krrb does not have the right to scrape data from Craigslist, on your say-so.

The content was posted to Craigslist with a license for Craigslist to publish it, not for Krrb. Much like a book author gives up certain rights to distribute a book through a publisher (including where and when it's published), the user is giving up certain rights to post the content on Craigslist. Whether this is a bad thing or not is up to the author of the content, not a 3rd party to decide.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#75

Post by rhizome »

tempestn wrote: post #26
throwaway9848 wrote: post #20

Craigslist has been incredibly consistent about its position. It would be shocking of Krrb didn't get a C&D. The author's mock surprise and petty insults come off really pathetic given this is clearly a planned publicity stunt. CL is simple, unobtrusive, and doesn't make its users feel like it's try to monetize every click or pageview. That's why the dominate the market. I love it that they sue the hell out of anyone…

No, it's that craigslist has massive network effects working for them, so there's no incentive for buyers or sellers to use a different site, even with a better interface and feature set. 3taps is alleging that this monopoly position, combined with craigslist's legal and technical efforts to block any innovation that makes use of data posted on craigslist, constitutes anti-competitive behavior. Whether that assertion…

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 prohibitions on CL that Craig does not enforce (or is being paid not to enforce) against the third-party resume sites (jobvite, sourcery, etc.) that have been ruining the CL jobs section over the past couple of years.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#76

Post by Vivtek »

stinkytaco wrote: post #67
Vivtek wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, Krrb is not using Craigslist infrastructure - it is simply taking the post already in the user's browser because they navigated there in the process of entering the post, and copying the text out for reuse. Craigslist can only litigate on that basis because they know Krrb doesn't have the means to defend themselves. That's not a public good.

The post I was replying to was grouping krrb and padmapper. I don't know much about krrb or what it does. Seems like a glorified copy past so I'm not sure how that exactly translates to a business worth putting this much effort into defending. Maybe I'm missing something. But padmapper is clearly leveraging Craiglist's infrastructure for padmapper’s own benefit. I find that difficult to defend.

I agree with you on padmapper.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#77

Post by stan_rogers »

IanDrake wrote: post #73
throwaway9848 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>but after that it's CL's If that were true then CL would be liable for their content. If a pimp posts a message and CL owns it, then CL is responsible for pimping. When state AG's have pressed this issue, CL claims they don't own the message. They can't have it both ways.

Um, yes they can. You are free to post the same content elsewhere -- you still have copyright in the material. What you don't have is rights to redistribute content from Craigslist. The publisher's rights (which you granted) are different from the author's rights, but they still exist. That doesn't make them liable for your content.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#78

Post by d19 »

samstave wrote: post #2

I used to have a great deal of admiration for Craig, and craigslist... It's all but dissolved. After his/their repugnant treatment of Eric/padmapper and their more than glacial acceptance of the fact the CL UI sucked and was actually punitive to the UX - and yet another example of CL just being jerks, I am pretty much completely devoid of any respect for Craig/CL. It's too bad, especially given how Craig attempts to…

Craig is almost entirely not involved in the day-to-day running of the company, he spends most of his time on those social causes.

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#79

Post by 3am »

keithnoizu wrote: post #28
richardjordan wrote: post #16

This is a pointless waste if time. The guy has made shed loads of money and his actions have clearly demonstrated he doesn't give a flying whatever about anyone's opinion of his actions and will continue to do whatever maximizes his profit. I say that without positive or negative judgment. It just is what it is. The whole - hey we know you're really a nice kid so stop bullying the other kids - schtick never worked in…

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…

"Wantrapaneur"

I love this term. How did I not know of it before?

Re: An Open Letter to Craig Newmark

#80

Post by SilasX »

stan_rogers wrote: post #77
IanDrake wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but after that it's CL's If that were true then CL would be liable for their content. If a pimp posts a message and CL owns it, then CL is responsible for pimping. When state AG's have pressed this issue, CL claims they don't own the message. They can't have it both ways.

Um, yes they can. You are free to post the same content elsewhere -- you still have copyright in the material. What you don't have is rights to redistribute content from Craigslist. The publisher's rights (which you granted) are different from the author's rights, but they still exist. That doesn't make them liable for your content.

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