4 ms·
> By scraping craigslist in an attempt to undermine their platform you are eliminating their site's relatively utility for buyers, which eliminates the impetus
by fusiongyro 14y ago
> By scraping craigslist in an attempt to undermine their platform you are eliminating their site's relatively utility for buyers, which eliminates the impetus for sellers to list there.
This is exactly what Craigslist will argue, but it's hard to imagine how that could be true if the eventual downstream destination of the data always sends the user back to Craigslist to finish the process.
- debacle 14y agoIt doesn't matter. It's a copyright issue. Craigslist has the right to protect their copyright, it can be proven that they have a unique database, and it can also very likely be proven that the scrapers knew they were doing something illegal (e.g. willful infringement) when the scraping took place.
- stcredzero 14y agoIt doesn't matter. It's a copyright issue. Craigslist has the right to protect their copyright, it can be proven that they have a unique database, and it can also very likely be proven that the scrapers knew they were doing something illegal (e.g. willful infringement) when the scraping took place. As far as I know, there is no database copyright in the US.
- nostromo 14y agoLike Amazon's and Yelp's reviews, Craigslist would probably claim copyright on the posts themselves, not just the aggregation thereof.
- stcredzero 14y agoYes, but as far as I can tell, that gives them exactly bupkis on PadMapper.
- jwoah12 14y agoI think you mean "bupkis." Dick Butkus is a hall-of-fame NFL linebacker.
- stcredzero 14y agoThanks. I want to get stuff like that right.
- r00fus 14y agoAnd you'd be proven wrong by a simple google search on "database copyright"... first hit [1] shows a compilation of laws and court rulings that support copyrighting collection of records... and this stuff has been around for a decade or more. [1] http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
- fusiongyro 14y agoI agree, it doesn't matter, but I think the reasoning is probably wrong. It would have been better for everyone if Craigslist gave away the data minus whatever is needed to finish the transaction, and include in the TOS that that you must send the user back to Craigslist to actually finish whatever they're trying to do.
- stfu 14y agoI really don't get the whole argument and all this Craigslist bashing. It looks like someone built his house on the grounds of somebody else's ground and now tries to rally up the internet because the owner of the land found out about the illegal house. Is it not just like asking "why doesn't Google, Ebay etc let me scrape their database"? Just because someone found a nicer way to display, sort, relate the data, does give them neither a legal or nor a moral right to use the data.
- smashing 14y agoThe startups who are Craigslist bashing just have a vested interest in getting access to Craigslist content without any ToS. It is more like demanding that a property open up because there is gold on it and they are demanding that it be made available to them because they can serve gold to the market better than the land owner. From what I am reading though, the businesses are offering nothing in the way of compensation and this is more of a property grab.
- fusiongyro 14y agoI'm not disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with the foregone conclusion that a more liberal ToS would spell doom for Craigslist. A nicer way to display, sort, relate the data doesn't confer rights, but--as long as the end destination is Craigslist--I don't think providing access is a necessarily a losing proposition for either party.