5 ms·

Whatever the agenda behind pushing this might be, the "legalese" has real implications IRL. You don't own the content of your listings anymore if you post on cr

Whatever the agenda behind pushing this might be, the "legalese" has real implications IRL. You don't own the content of your listings anymore if you post on craigslist - so you're going to be liable if you're going to use any of the content elsewhere (including pictures).

wilfra 14y ago
That might technically be true but that clearly isn't the intent here. Craigslist is not going to be suing their users for copy/pasting the same listing across multiple sites... This is clearly directed to services like Padmapper - which, by the way, I strongly support and wish Craigslist would leave TF alone.
- scotty79 14y ago
  But it will be suing those sites. So If you have a site where people can put their advertisements you better look if they haven't posted same advertisement on craigslist and when they do don't publish it on your site. Of course you can just slap the same lawyer silliness on your form and claim that you have also been given exclusive licence by your users and counter sue craigslist. I'm not sure if court is required to resolve the matter if you both have identical claims. Not sure if who got their "exclusive" licence first matters anything in such case.
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    Actually, if you do the cross-posting, Craigslist would be entitled to sue you for violating their exclusivity agreement, not the other site. What this would put on a poster is the extra work to make the copyrightable content different between sites.
    - scotty79 14y ago
      I don't think any company would sue their users. PR in at least remotely sane companies trumps legal.
      - sageikosa 14y ago
        I agree on that. Likely they may consider banning you from posting for violating their terms of service. I was just trying to refute that if users cross-posted, they, and not the site to which they posted would be in violation of the agreement.
        scotty79 14y ago
        Banning probably would be another PR no-no, as it might bring their recent "legal" stunt to public attention. One thing is to write something in the fine print at the bottom of the form on your website to help your lawyers get out of the place that they cornered themselves into. Another is persecuting your users for not obeying something so obviously stupid that most people would consider it a typo.

wilfra 14y ago

That might technically be true but that clearly isn't the intent here. Craigslist is not going to be suing their users for copy/pasting the same listing across multiple sites... This is clearly directed to services like Padmapper - which, by the way, I strongly support and wish Craigslist would leave TF alone.

scotty79 14y ago
But it will be suing those sites. So If you have a site where people can put their advertisements you better look if they haven't posted same advertisement on craigslist and when they do don't publish it on your site. Of course you can just slap the same lawyer silliness on your form and claim that you have also been given exclusive licence by your users and counter sue craigslist. I'm not sure if court is required to resolve the matter if you both have identical claims. Not sure if who got their "exclusive" licence first matters anything in such case.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Actually, if you do the cross-posting, Craigslist would be entitled to sue you for violating their exclusivity agreement, not the other site. What this would put on a poster is the extra work to make the copyrightable content different between sites.
  - scotty79 14y ago
    I don't think any company would sue their users. PR in at least remotely sane companies trumps legal.
    - sageikosa 14y ago
      I agree on that. Likely they may consider banning you from posting for violating their terms of service. I was just trying to refute that if users cross-posted, they, and not the site to which they posted would be in violation of the agreement.
      - scotty79 14y ago
        Banning probably would be another PR no-no, as it might bring their recent "legal" stunt to public attention. One thing is to write something in the fine print at the bottom of the form on your website to help your lawyers get out of the place that they cornered themselves into. Another is persecuting your users for not obeying something so obviously stupid that most people would consider it a typo.