4 ms·

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

by 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.

natrius 14y ago
"Legally, it doesn't matter who hosts the site" False. Terms of use and copyright are orthogonal. You can't enforce terms of use on someone who doesn't use your site. Copyright would still be enforceable if Craigslist held the copyright. "As a licensee, Craiglist has the right to enforce this copyright against you if it chooses." I know of no legal precedent that backs this up. Craigslist claims this right in its terms of use. I think it's bullshit to scare people away from doing what Padmapper and 3taps are doing. "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." Neither of those claims are true. The terms of use don't apply to someone who doesn't use the site. Neither Padmapper nor 3taps are causing posters to breach their contracts with Craiglist.
- rprasad 14y ago
  1) Padmapper and 3taps are using Craiglist's site; they are simply used a copy of the site. That difference is not relevant from a legal standpoint given their specific use. 2) It's basic contract and copyright law that a licensee may defend a copyright if necessary to protect their license. See Righthaven, which came down to this very issue: Righthaven was prevented from asserting newspapers' copyrights because it did not have a license to the newspapers' content. 3) You have this backwards. Padmapper and 3taps are (a) the ones breaching the contracts between themselves and Craigslist (see 1) and (b) are interfering in the license agreements between Craiglist and the posters. The posters are not breaching anything. Don't be an armchair lawyer.
  - natrius 14y ago
    1) The difference is not relevant in respect to copyright law. The difference is very relevant in respect to my layman's understanding of contract law. How can Padmapper or 3taps enter a contract with Craigslist without interacting with them at all? Am I bound by Craigslist's terms of use if someone hands me a printout of a listing? 2) From the Righthaven opinion[1]: Pursuant to Section 501(b) of the 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et. seq., (the “Act”) only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under copyright law is entitled, or has standing, to sue for infringement. Righthaven owned the copyright to the work in question, but granted all of the exclusive rights back to the original creator. While Craigslist has a license to its listings, its standing to sue for infringement doesn't seem clear to me. I'd love to see a counterexample. 3a) Presumably, 3taps and Padmapper no longer access Craigslist. As a result, they are no longer bound by their terms of use. From the TOU: "If you do not accept and agree to all provisions of the TOU, now or in the future, you may reject the TOU by immediately terminating all access and use of craigslist, in which case any continuing access or use of craigslist is unauthorized." 3b) I see no interference in the license agreement between Craigslist and the posters. Craigslist's license is non-exclusive. Padmapper's use of the posters' content does not breach the license agreement. Call me an armchair lawyer all you want, but so far, your arguments seem to contradict the facts. [1] https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/righthaven_v_dem/order6-14-11.pdf https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/righthaven_...
    - 14y ago

by rprasad 14y ago

natrius 14y ago

"Legally, it doesn't matter who hosts the site" False. Terms of use and copyright are orthogonal. You can't enforce terms of use on someone who doesn't use your site. Copyright would still be enforceable if Craigslist held the copyright. "As a licensee, Craiglist has the right to enforce this copyright against you if it chooses." I know of no legal precedent that backs this up. Craigslist claims this right in its terms of use. I think it's bullshit to scare people away from doing what Padmapper and 3taps are doing. "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." Neither of those claims are true. The terms of use don't apply to someone who doesn't use the site. Neither Padmapper nor 3taps are causing posters to breach their contracts with Craiglist.

rprasad 14y ago
1) Padmapper and 3taps are using Craiglist's site; they are simply used a copy of the site. That difference is not relevant from a legal standpoint given their specific use. 2) It's basic contract and copyright law that a licensee may defend a copyright if necessary to protect their license. See Righthaven, which came down to this very issue: Righthaven was prevented from asserting newspapers' copyrights because it did not have a license to the newspapers' content. 3) You have this backwards. Padmapper and 3taps are (a) the ones breaching the contracts between themselves and Craigslist (see 1) and (b) are interfering in the license agreements between Craiglist and the posters. The posters are not breaching anything. Don't be an armchair lawyer.
- natrius 14y ago
  1) The difference is not relevant in respect to copyright law. The difference is very relevant in respect to my layman's understanding of contract law. How can Padmapper or 3taps enter a contract with Craigslist without interacting with them at all? Am I bound by Craigslist's terms of use if someone hands me a printout of a listing? 2) From the Righthaven opinion[1]: Pursuant to Section 501(b) of the 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et. seq., (the “Act”) only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under copyright law is entitled, or has standing, to sue for infringement. Righthaven owned the copyright to the work in question, but granted all of the exclusive rights back to the original creator. While Craigslist has a license to its listings, its standing to sue for infringement doesn't seem clear to me. I'd love to see a counterexample. 3a) Presumably, 3taps and Padmapper no longer access Craigslist. As a result, they are no longer bound by their terms of use. From the TOU: "If you do not accept and agree to all provisions of the TOU, now or in the future, you may reject the TOU by immediately terminating all access and use of craigslist, in which case any continuing access or use of craigslist is unauthorized." 3b) I see no interference in the license agreement between Craigslist and the posters. Craigslist's license is non-exclusive. Padmapper's use of the posters' content does not breach the license agreement. Call me an armchair lawyer all you want, but so far, your arguments seem to contradict the facts. [1] https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/righthaven_v_dem/order6-14-11.pdf https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/righthaven_...
  - 14y ago