91–100 of 109 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uh.... there is NOTHING web 2.0 about CL
From Wikipedia: "Web 2.0 describes web sites that use technology beyond the static pages of earlier web sites...A Web 2.0 site may allow users to interact and collaborate with each other" Craigslist, along with Flickr, Twitter, etc, are the quintessential Web 2.0 sites.
I've been in Silicon Valley since 1996, CL is not Web 2.0
/Lawn
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What's the difference between copying and pasting from a single text file to both CL and krrb and copying and pasting from a CL post that you wrote to krrb? They're functionally equivalent as you're the author and retain your authorly rights in either case. The krrb tool extracts data from a file not on craigslist servers, but from the browser cache on your own computer. It's a browser plug-in, not a server-side tool…
It is just that, with a copy-paste job, it would be impossible to detect this, which is why they seem functionally equivalent. But actually they're not.
Also automation and convenience have huge legal implications. I can, for example buy an iPod in the US and gift it to a friend of mine in Turkey. We have effectively circumvented state tax. I can't, however, write a website that acts as a broker between US passengers landing in Istanbul airport, and people who want cheap iPods. Even though they would be technically paired up with a "friend" and would be within their legal rights to bring valuable goods into the country.
I can have a friend stay a few days at my house, but I can't turn my house into a hotel with Airbnb. Volume and convenience affect the bottom line for different parties.
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.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/terms.of.use > 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…
hmm.. so this guy - Craig - works his ass off all these years and builds a site that makes him money. HIS hard work paying HIM money.Now someone else comes along and wants to build a site that has the potential to hurt Craig's work.. Wonder why Craig doesn't like it.. Before pointing a finger at Craig, how about you build something from grounds up, get to Craig's level and then allow anyone else to just take stuff aw…
I guess we need to heavily regulate these digital monopolies, coerce them somehow.
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.
I'd agree, but this is precisely what Craigslist is disputing in their C&D. Reread the letter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From Wikipedia: "Web 2.0 describes web sites that use technology beyond the static pages of earlier web sites...A Web 2.0 site may allow users to interact and collaborate with each other" Craigslist, along with Flickr, Twitter, etc, are the quintessential Web 2.0 sites.
Sorry, craigslist predates that definition. It predates wikipedia as well. I've been in Silicon Valley since 1996, CL is not Web 2.0 /Lawn
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"?
While I agree with the main argument of the letter, I don't understand the characterization of CL's law firm as "infamous," and its employees as "cronies." What exactly are they infamous for? Just sending C&Ds on behalf of Craigslist? Further, the argument that zealous attempts at protecting IP means you should be .com not org falls pretty short to me. The Red Cross has a policy of sending C&Ds to game companies that…
I've worked with a few associates at Perkins Coie. They represented the nonprofit I work for at no cost in an arbitration case against a dodgy web development shop that sued our nonprofit for nearly a fourth of our annual budget over a breach of contract after we fired them for being incapable of keeping our site up under even modest traffic levels. (Load testing and not letting junior developers with no experience with caching, MVC best practices etc, do all the work: how does that work)
The Lawyers were nice, polite, well mannered, treating us and the opposition with respect, etc. They were a pleasure to work with. I didn't see a single crony in the bunch.
Lawyers are lawyers. They do what they have to do to protect the interests of their clients. That is their job. Perkins Coie is very good at their job. That doesn't some how make them bad people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 prohibit…