6 ms·

Cartographers, encyclopedicians, and dictionary aggregators have always included some false data as a honeypot: An alleyway might not really exist. An obscure w

Cartographers, encyclopedicians, and dictionary aggregators have always included some false data as a honeypot: An alleyway might not really exist. An obscure word might have been made up. A famous person might be entirely fictitious. The goal is to catch people copying their books. If you use “original research,” you’d never say that Braythwayt Street runs parallel to Rhodes Avenue in Toronto, you must have copied our map data without permission. I’m curious as to how padmapper intendeds to solve this problem. If Craigslist seed their listings with something false, that something is entirely craigslist’s copyright. It isn’t a “fact.” They don’t have a right to reproduce it. Lawyers, please chime in.

keithpeter 14y ago
Oh, short story idea there. Someone claims to live in the made up address and generates an identity complete with utility bills... Neal S here we come...
- raganwald 14y ago
  Fred Saberhagen used the concept of a map bunny as a plot device in one of his Berserker short stories.
mikeryan 14y ago
I believe padmapper is kind of relying on 3taps to take the hit. 3taps apparently is DMCA compliant. Long story short I'd expect 3taps to be craigslist legal target. (though actually I guess 3taps doesn't actually use the data so I'm not sure if what they're doing is technically illegal until padmapper uses it - I'm going to stop armchair lawyering now)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- dpark 14y ago
  I'm not sure it matters what 3taps says or whether they are DMCA compliant. If I host pirated movies on my server and post in big bold letters, "I promise that you can redistribute them. It's totally legal and I'm responsible for any legal actions.", you're probably still getting sued by the MPAA if you redistribute the movies, and they'll probably win. I'm not saying Craigslist has any legitimate claim over the data, merely that if they do, accessing it via an indirect means probably doesn't change anything legally.
  - jessriedel 14y ago
    I think the idea is that Craigslist's claim over the data is categorically different than the MPAA's over movies. The MPAA has a copyright (by proxy) over the movies. Craigslist has a Terms of Service which they assert are legally binding on anyone interacting with their servers, but (I think) they don't claim copyright over the ad. EDIT: mikeryan, you appear to be right. Upon further reflection, I think the distinction is that PadMapper does not put up the entire post written by the user, just the fact that the post exists and is in reference to a particular location. Likewise, it's kosher for me to tell Alice that Bob posted a poem on his window so that she can go read it, even though it would not be kosher for me to make her a copy.
    - mikeryan 14y ago
      Their claim: 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 otherwise use any content that you post. You also expressly grant and assign to CL all rights and causes of action to prohibit and enforce against any unauthorized copying, performance, display, distribution, use or exploitation of, or creation of derivative works from, any content that you post (including but not limited to any unauthorized downloading, extraction, harvesting, collection or aggregation of content that you post). There's an interesting subtext here. The key for CL is this line You also expressly grant and assign to CL all rights and causes of action to prohibit and enforce against any unauthorized copying, performance, display, distribution, use or exploitation of, or creation of derivative works from, any content that you post (including but not limited to any unauthorized downloading, extraction, harvesting, collection or aggregation of content that you post) I believe there was a case with Righthaven[1] where it was found that the copyright owners can assign copyright but can't assign copyright enforcement rights. I wonder if this is the loophole that 3taps is looking to exploit. [1] https://www.eff.org/press/releases/righthaven-case-ends-victory-fair-use https://www.eff.org/press/releases/righthaven-case-ends-vict...
- ericd 14y ago
  That's not the goal, no. The point there is that neither PadMapper nor 3taps interact with their servers, so neither has to implicitly agree to their ridiculous TOU in order to summarize the listings. That's the only reason for that.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikeryan 14y ago
    I don't believe the methodology used to collect the data actually matters does it? The question is fully around the copyright ownership of the content. I can record TV content from an over the air broadcast and never touch a thing and still not have the right to retransmit the content.
    - ericd 14y ago
      I should have made it clear in the post (I just updated it), but their complaint wasn't a copyright one, but a TOU violation one. PadMapper isn't displaying the listings themselves, it just lists #BR, #BA, Price, and a few other things, and links you to the original to read more.
    - stcredzero 14y ago
      > I don't believe the methodology used to collect the data actually matters does it? Actually it does, from both a legal and moral standpoint. It shouldn't be wrong to re-aggregate data from already public sources. That way lies insanity and oppression. > The question is fully around the copyright ownership of the content. Actually, it's around ownership of the material facts in the content. Those can't be owned, at least in the US.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    You're still violating Craiglist's license and TOU by scraping a copy of the website. Legally, it doesn't matter who hosts the site (or else hosting a site on CloudFront or Amazon would negate copyright protections). The site remains the property of the owner, and use of that site remains under the control of the owner. It does not matter that you're only using "facts", because those "facts" are data specifically collected by Craiglist pursuant to a license with the original poster. The selection of relevant facts is protected by copyright law in the U.S. As a licensee, Craiglist has the right to enforce this copyright against you if it chooses. Morever, by violating the TOU, you are either directly breaching a contract with Craiglist or committing tortious interference in the contract between CL and the poster. Either way, you do not have a legal leg to stand on. If Craiglist goes after you, you will be screwed. The first time around, your actions were harmless. But this time around, you are knowingly and deliberately violating Craiglists' rights. That opens the door to punitive damages. Judges and juries do not look kindly upon people who violate others' property rights, especially after being told not to. Being a "startup" is not an excuse to break the rules or fuck with other people's rights.
- rprasad 14y ago
  IAAL. Both 3Taps and Padmapper are potentially liable in this scheme. DMCA compliance does not protect this type of use; the safe harbors are very narrow and specific. It only protects websites (or services) from liability for content posted to the website directly, by users of the website (or service). The DMCA does not protect the website (or service) from content it actively acquires, on its own or on behalf of another party. 3Tap is scraping the Google Cache under some misguided interpretation that the copy of the Craiglist site is not protected by copyright. This is as ridiculous a legal interpretation as Carreon's charges against the Oatmeal for defamation. Google has fair use rights to maintain a copy of Craiglist's site in its cache, but ownership of the content remains with Craiglist. This is no different than if the site were hosted on Akamai or CloudFront servers instead of Craiglist's own servers. Copyright liability does not stop with the first infringer. Every infringer is potentially liable (which is why the DMCA safe harbors were necessary in the first place).
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > IAAL. Then you should consider the following. > 3Tap is scraping the Google Cache under some misguided interpretation that the copy of the Craiglist site is not protected by copyright. Yes, but is 3Taps presenting a copy of the posting or the material facts contained within the posting? The former would be a copyright violation. The latter should not be. I cannot tell without delving into the SDK. I take it you didn't consider this.
    - rprasad 14y ago
      I did consider this. Facts are not copyrightable, but unique selections of facts are copyrightable. This is a basic tenet of the copyright decisions regarding databases and phonebooks. Moreover, even if the copyright does not rise to the level of a copyright violation (if the facts copied are not sufficiently unique -- that would require a look at the CL fields, the 3Tap API, and Padmapper's use), it would still be a TOS violation, which courts have held are enforceable especially against commercial entities.
      - 14y ago
rada 14y ago
Along the same lines, how does a company that takes another's data protect its own? If padmapper takes craigslist data under the genuine opinion that it is fully legal for them to do so, can I go ahead and copy all their data? Craigslist couldn't sue me because I am siphoning the data off padmapper's servers, and padmapper couldn't sue me because after all, it is all totally legal and super duper helpful to the end users.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  Along the same lines, how does a company that takes another's data protect its own? If your company has to "protect its data" but in fact, it's really the user's data: this should be a red flag.
  - rada 14y ago
    Poor google, facebook and craigslist. I wonder if those 3 will ever make it, what with the giant red flag all over their business model.
    - stcredzero 14y ago
      It's extraordinary, but yes, I mean that. Google doesn't try to "protect" its data. Facebook and Craigslist do. Yes, there is a red flag on the latter two companies. They have to actively exert themselves to keep their network-effect advantage. Insofar as they do this by generating value for users, they will prosper. When they act against user interests, they act against the preservation of their network advantage. If they go too far or do too little, they will fall.
      - saurik 14y ago
        Google definitely tries to protect their data: if you try to scrape any of their APIs, whether it be for Maps, +, or Search, you will find yourself rapidly hitting quotas. They are very good about denying access to things that don't look like humans, and in cases where the data was extracted using horrendously indirect means (Bing) they resorted to public shaming.
gojomo 14y ago
I believe that technique (called 'map bunnies' in the mapmaking domain) has been used to discover copiers, but that subsequent legal/social action against the transgressors is not based on the damages caused by the bunny-copying itself, but the now-detected larger pattern. IANAL, but I would expect the copier-of-fake-listings to have a number of defenses in such a situation. It would be hard to prove any real damages from the copying of just those fake listings – any loss of business is due to the copying of the bulk of other real listings. To the extent those other real listings are 'facts', reproducing them may be a protected activity under US legal precedent ('Feist'). The false items don't change the key issue at all. (Statutory damages might still be a problem.) Further, consider: • Someone couldn't intentionally hoax a newspaper and then sue the newspaper for having reproduced their creative work of fiction. • If I tricked you into downloading a file labelled "public-domain video of the 1997 state-of-the-union address", which is actually the 'West Wing' pilot episode, it'd be hard for me to collect damages for copyright violation. To some extent, passing off material in the form of something else – where that something else would otherwise be legal to disseminate – can easily be considered implicit permission to treat that material as if it were the first thing (true facts, hot news, copyright-unemcumbered information, etc). Injecting the false data still serves a 'detection' purpose but probably can't serve a 'damages-heightening' purpose. (And, detection isn't at issue in this scenario: PadMapper has announced their intent and technique publicly.)
- raganwald 14y ago
  > Someone couldn't intentionally hoax a newspaper and then sue the newspaper for having reproduced their creative work of fiction. Your point is cogent, but the example is not. if someone hoazes a newspaper, the are encouraging the newspaper to “copy” them. Craigslist is not hoaxing 3taps or padmapper, just the opposite. In my conjecture, they’re sending C&D letters saying “Do NOT copy our data. Although most of it is not copyrightable, some of it is and cannot be copied from our web site or API. Get your ‘facts' from original sources.” That is very different from hoaxing or inducing someone to copy and then yelling “gotcha!"
extension 14y ago
Not a lawyer, but I would be really surprised if that sort of copyright shenanigans held up against any legal challenge. I don't think you can sneak copyrighted stuff into non-copyrightable stuff in order to protect it.
qeorge 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural This is (to my knowledge) the most relevant case regarding facts and copyright. Rural made a local phone book, and Feist made an aggregate phone book which wholesale copied Rural's listings (and presumably others). In this case Rural did seed their phone book with fake listings as you describe. Feist copied the fake listings along with the legitimate listings and still won the case.
- cleary 14y ago
  https://www.interllective.com/articles/brian/feist-v-rural-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia https://www.interllective.com/articles/brian/feist-v-rural-w... Some related legal precedent, discussion, and doctrines. Note in particular the "Sweat of the Brow" doctrine, which holds that rights may be granted "through simple diligence during the creation of a work...Substantial creativity or "originality" is not required." Looks like this doctrine was rejected in Feist v Rural.
eli 14y ago
I don't actually think that's relevant. The point of the "fake streets" on maps is to prove that the rival map maker copied data rather than driving all the roads themselves. Here, there is no doubt that the data in question is originally sourced from Craigslist. There is no need to prove it.

keithpeter 14y ago

Oh, short story idea there. Someone claims to live in the made up address and generates an identity complete with utility bills... Neal S here we come...

raganwald 14y ago
Fred Saberhagen used the concept of a map bunny as a plot device in one of his Berserker short stories.

mikeryan 14y ago

I believe padmapper is kind of relying on 3taps to take the hit. 3taps apparently is DMCA compliant. Long story short I'd expect 3taps to be craigslist legal target. (though actually I guess 3taps doesn't actually use the data so I'm not sure if what they're doing is technically illegal until padmapper uses it - I'm going to stop armchair lawyering now)

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
dpark 14y ago
I'm not sure it matters what 3taps says or whether they are DMCA compliant. If I host pirated movies on my server and post in big bold letters, "I promise that you can redistribute them. It's totally legal and I'm responsible for any legal actions.", you're probably still getting sued by the MPAA if you redistribute the movies, and they'll probably win. I'm not saying Craigslist has any legitimate claim over the data, merely that if they do, accessing it via an indirect means probably doesn't change anything legally.
- jessriedel 14y ago
  I think the idea is that Craigslist's claim over the data is categorically different than the MPAA's over movies. The MPAA has a copyright (by proxy) over the movies. Craigslist has a Terms of Service which they assert are legally binding on anyone interacting with their servers, but (I think) they don't claim copyright over the ad. EDIT: mikeryan, you appear to be right. Upon further reflection, I think the distinction is that PadMapper does not put up the entire post written by the user, just the fact that the post exists and is in reference to a particular location. Likewise, it's kosher for me to tell Alice that Bob posted a poem on his window so that she can go read it, even though it would not be kosher for me to make her a copy.
  - mikeryan 14y ago
    Their claim: 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 otherwise use any content that you post. You also expressly grant and assign to CL all rights and causes of action to prohibit and enforce against any unauthorized copying, performance, display, distribution, use or exploitation of, or creation of derivative works from, any content that you post (including but not limited to any unauthorized downloading, extraction, harvesting, collection or aggregation of content that you post). There's an interesting subtext here. The key for CL is this line You also expressly grant and assign to CL all rights and causes of action to prohibit and enforce against any unauthorized copying, performance, display, distribution, use or exploitation of, or creation of derivative works from, any content that you post (including but not limited to any unauthorized downloading, extraction, harvesting, collection or aggregation of content that you post) I believe there was a case with Righthaven[1] where it was found that the copyright owners can assign copyright but can't assign copyright enforcement rights. I wonder if this is the loophole that 3taps is looking to exploit. [1] https://www.eff.org/press/releases/righthaven-case-ends-victory-fair-use https://www.eff.org/press/releases/righthaven-case-ends-vict...
ericd 14y ago
That's not the goal, no. The point there is that neither PadMapper nor 3taps interact with their servers, so neither has to implicitly agree to their ridiculous TOU in order to summarize the listings. That's the only reason for that.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeryan 14y ago
  I don't believe the methodology used to collect the data actually matters does it? The question is fully around the copyright ownership of the content. I can record TV content from an over the air broadcast and never touch a thing and still not have the right to retransmit the content.
  - ericd 14y ago
    I should have made it clear in the post (I just updated it), but their complaint wasn't a copyright one, but a TOU violation one. PadMapper isn't displaying the listings themselves, it just lists #BR, #BA, Price, and a few other things, and links you to the original to read more.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > I don't believe the methodology used to collect the data actually matters does it? Actually it does, from both a legal and moral standpoint. It shouldn't be wrong to re-aggregate data from already public sources. That way lies insanity and oppression. > The question is fully around the copyright ownership of the content. Actually, it's around ownership of the material facts in the content. Those can't be owned, at least in the US.
- rprasad 14y ago
  You're still violating Craiglist's license and TOU by scraping a copy of the website. Legally, it doesn't matter who hosts the site (or else hosting a site on CloudFront or Amazon would negate copyright protections). The site remains the property of the owner, and use of that site remains under the control of the owner. It does not matter that you're only using "facts", because those "facts" are data specifically collected by Craiglist pursuant to a license with the original poster. The selection of relevant facts is protected by copyright law in the U.S. As a licensee, Craiglist has the right to enforce this copyright against you if it chooses. Morever, by violating the TOU, you are either directly breaching a contract with Craiglist or committing tortious interference in the contract between CL and the poster. Either way, you do not have a legal leg to stand on. If Craiglist goes after you, you will be screwed. The first time around, your actions were harmless. But this time around, you are knowingly and deliberately violating Craiglists' rights. That opens the door to punitive damages. Judges and juries do not look kindly upon people who violate others' property rights, especially after being told not to. Being a "startup" is not an excuse to break the rules or fuck with other people's rights.
rprasad 14y ago
IAAL. Both 3Taps and Padmapper are potentially liable in this scheme. DMCA compliance does not protect this type of use; the safe harbors are very narrow and specific. It only protects websites (or services) from liability for content posted to the website directly, by users of the website (or service). The DMCA does not protect the website (or service) from content it actively acquires, on its own or on behalf of another party. 3Tap is scraping the Google Cache under some misguided interpretation that the copy of the Craiglist site is not protected by copyright. This is as ridiculous a legal interpretation as Carreon's charges against the Oatmeal for defamation. Google has fair use rights to maintain a copy of Craiglist's site in its cache, but ownership of the content remains with Craiglist. This is no different than if the site were hosted on Akamai or CloudFront servers instead of Craiglist's own servers. Copyright liability does not stop with the first infringer. Every infringer is potentially liable (which is why the DMCA safe harbors were necessary in the first place).
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > IAAL. Then you should consider the following. > 3Tap is scraping the Google Cache under some misguided interpretation that the copy of the Craiglist site is not protected by copyright. Yes, but is 3Taps presenting a copy of the posting or the material facts contained within the posting? The former would be a copyright violation. The latter should not be. I cannot tell without delving into the SDK. I take it you didn't consider this.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    I did consider this. Facts are not copyrightable, but unique selections of facts are copyrightable. This is a basic tenet of the copyright decisions regarding databases and phonebooks. Moreover, even if the copyright does not rise to the level of a copyright violation (if the facts copied are not sufficiently unique -- that would require a look at the CL fields, the 3Tap API, and Padmapper's use), it would still be a TOS violation, which courts have held are enforceable especially against commercial entities.
    - 14y ago

rada 14y ago

Along the same lines, how does a company that takes another's data protect its own? If padmapper takes craigslist data under the genuine opinion that it is fully legal for them to do so, can I go ahead and copy all their data? Craigslist couldn't sue me because I am siphoning the data off padmapper's servers, and padmapper couldn't sue me because after all, it is all totally legal and super duper helpful to the end users.

stcredzero 14y ago
Along the same lines, how does a company that takes another's data protect its own? If your company has to "protect its data" but in fact, it's really the user's data: this should be a red flag.
- rada 14y ago
  Poor google, facebook and craigslist. I wonder if those 3 will ever make it, what with the giant red flag all over their business model.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    It's extraordinary, but yes, I mean that. Google doesn't try to "protect" its data. Facebook and Craigslist do. Yes, there is a red flag on the latter two companies. They have to actively exert themselves to keep their network-effect advantage. Insofar as they do this by generating value for users, they will prosper. When they act against user interests, they act against the preservation of their network advantage. If they go too far or do too little, they will fall.
    - saurik 14y ago
      Google definitely tries to protect their data: if you try to scrape any of their APIs, whether it be for Maps, +, or Search, you will find yourself rapidly hitting quotas. They are very good about denying access to things that don't look like humans, and in cases where the data was extracted using horrendously indirect means (Bing) they resorted to public shaming.

gojomo 14y ago

I believe that technique (called 'map bunnies' in the mapmaking domain) has been used to discover copiers, but that subsequent legal/social action against the transgressors is not based on the damages caused by the bunny-copying itself, but the now-detected larger pattern. IANAL, but I would expect the copier-of-fake-listings to have a number of defenses in such a situation. It would be hard to prove any real damages from the copying of just those fake listings – any loss of business is due to the copying of the bulk of other real listings. To the extent those other real listings are 'facts', reproducing them may be a protected activity under US legal precedent ('Feist'). The false items don't change the key issue at all. (Statutory damages might still be a problem.) Further, consider: • Someone couldn't intentionally hoax a newspaper and then sue the newspaper for having reproduced their creative work of fiction. • If I tricked you into downloading a file labelled "public-domain video of the 1997 state-of-the-union address", which is actually the 'West Wing' pilot episode, it'd be hard for me to collect damages for copyright violation. To some extent, passing off material in the form of something else – where that something else would otherwise be legal to disseminate – can easily be considered implicit permission to treat that material as if it were the first thing (true facts, hot news, copyright-unemcumbered information, etc). Injecting the false data still serves a 'detection' purpose but probably can't serve a 'damages-heightening' purpose. (And, detection isn't at issue in this scenario: PadMapper has announced their intent and technique publicly.)

raganwald 14y ago
> Someone couldn't intentionally hoax a newspaper and then sue the newspaper for having reproduced their creative work of fiction. Your point is cogent, but the example is not. if someone hoazes a newspaper, the are encouraging the newspaper to “copy” them. Craigslist is not hoaxing 3taps or padmapper, just the opposite. In my conjecture, they’re sending C&D letters saying “Do NOT copy our data. Although most of it is not copyrightable, some of it is and cannot be copied from our web site or API. Get your ‘facts' from original sources.” That is very different from hoaxing or inducing someone to copy and then yelling “gotcha!"

extension 14y ago

Not a lawyer, but I would be really surprised if that sort of copyright shenanigans held up against any legal challenge. I don't think you can sneak copyrighted stuff into non-copyrightable stuff in order to protect it.

qeorge 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural This is (to my knowledge) the most relevant case regarding facts and copyright. Rural made a local phone book, and Feist made an aggregate phone book which wholesale copied Rural's listings (and presumably others). In this case Rural did seed their phone book with fake listings as you describe. Feist copied the fake listings along with the legitimate listings and still won the case.

cleary 14y ago
https://www.interllective.com/articles/brian/feist-v-rural-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia https://www.interllective.com/articles/brian/feist-v-rural-w... Some related legal precedent, discussion, and doctrines. Note in particular the "Sweat of the Brow" doctrine, which holds that rights may be granted "through simple diligence during the creation of a work...Substantial creativity or "originality" is not required." Looks like this doctrine was rejected in Feist v Rural.

eli 14y ago

I don't actually think that's relevant. The point of the "fake streets" on maps is to prove that the rival map maker copied data rather than driving all the roads themselves. Here, there is no doubt that the data in question is originally sourced from Craigslist. There is no need to prove it.