3 ms·

grellas: your analysis of CL's behavior makes a lot of sense to me. However, I don't understand why you say the EFF was "tap-dancing around issues that are imp

by cs702 14y ago

grellas: your analysis of CL's behavior makes a lot of sense to me. However, I don't understand why you say the EFF was "tap-dancing around issues that are important to its mission." While I agree the EFF should be concerned with companies asking for exclusive licensing to user posts, because its mission is to protect individuals' digital rights, I don't see why it should concern itself with whether companies make aggregate data cacheable, scrap-able, or API-accessible to other businesses. CL makes money by aggregating data: it attracts buyers by aggregating all local listings in one place, and it attracts sellers by aggregating customer searches for local listings in one place. IMO the EFF has no business asking CL to give its product -- aggregate data -- away for free. Please explain, how exactly is the EFF "tap-dancing" here?

grellas 14y ago
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree that EFF has no business asking CL to give away its product for free, nor do I think CL should be forced to do so for any reason. By tap-dancing, I meant that EFF failed to discuss the legal issues in a way that it might, for example, have discussed the actions of a patent or copyright troll in making an outrageous attempt to disrupt internet norms through some indefensible legal artifice. In such a case, EFF would be the go-to site for an astute legal analysis delving into: (a) what was done, (b) why it is legally indefensible (if it arguably is), (c) the horrible policy implications of what was done, and (d) what the motives of the actor were in doing this and whether those motives could be justified for any reason. As I read this post, I saw none of the normally sharp and even hard-hitting analysis that EFF would offer in such a case. An action that normally would call for outrage has instead received a very diplomatically worded critique from the EFF. That is all I meant by "tap-dancing." It is almost as much about tone as about substance but clearly this to me is not one of EFF's normal posts.
- cs702 14y ago
  Ah, I see your point, although I still don't agree with it. The simplest explanation for the EFF's behavior is that in this case a confrontational stance was not necessary -- and in fact would have been counter-productive. CL has not only supported EFF values for a longtime, it also reversed the new user licensing terms very quickly. In other words, CL is very different from, and deserves different treatment than, a copyright or patent troll. Had CL persisted with those insane end-user terms, I have no doubt the EFF would have taken an increasingly confrontational stance. Thanks for the prompt response.

by cs702 14y ago

grellas 14y ago

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree that EFF has no business asking CL to give away its product for free, nor do I think CL should be forced to do so for any reason. By tap-dancing, I meant that EFF failed to discuss the legal issues in a way that it might, for example, have discussed the actions of a patent or copyright troll in making an outrageous attempt to disrupt internet norms through some indefensible legal artifice. In such a case, EFF would be the go-to site for an astute legal analysis delving into: (a) what was done, (b) why it is legally indefensible (if it arguably is), (c) the horrible policy implications of what was done, and (d) what the motives of the actor were in doing this and whether those motives could be justified for any reason. As I read this post, I saw none of the normally sharp and even hard-hitting analysis that EFF would offer in such a case. An action that normally would call for outrage has instead received a very diplomatically worded critique from the EFF. That is all I meant by "tap-dancing." It is almost as much about tone as about substance but clearly this to me is not one of EFF's normal posts.

cs702 14y ago
Ah, I see your point, although I still don't agree with it. The simplest explanation for the EFF's behavior is that in this case a confrontational stance was not necessary -- and in fact would have been counter-productive. CL has not only supported EFF values for a longtime, it also reversed the new user licensing terms very quickly. In other words, CL is very different from, and deserves different treatment than, a copyright or patent troll. Had CL persisted with those insane end-user terms, I have no doubt the EFF would have taken an increasingly confrontational stance. Thanks for the prompt response.