3 ms·
I assume you mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist_Inc._v._3Taps_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist_Inc._v._3Taps_Inc. It seems unlike
by stickfigure 8y ago
I assume you mean this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist_Inc._v._3Taps_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist_Inc._v._3Taps_Inc.
It seems unlikely to apply to a Chrome extension:
Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc., 942 F.Supp.2d 962 (N.D. Cal. 2013) was a Northern District of California Court case in which the court held that sending a cease-and-desist letter and enacting an IP address block is sufficient notice of online trespassing, which a plaintiff can use to claim a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
- pvg 8y agoWhat would keep it from applying to an extension? It says sufficient, not necessary and sufficient.
- stickfigure 8y agoFor one thing, the extension author is not an active participant and cannot be considered to be trespassing. A user, maybe. But I don't think we'll see Slack banning users anytime soon.
- pvg 8y agoThe intent is clear. I don't know the details of those decisions but Blizzard has won cases and stopped people from distributing tools that access their services in ways they don't approve of.
- stickfigure 8y agoThere may be other laws, precedents, and circumstances that are relevant. That doesn't mean that this case is.