3 ms·
I don't understand. >> The Court has ruled that users—not craigslist—own the copyrights in their postings. >> ... Craigslist finally conceded in Court that no
by tsycho 11y ago
I don't understand.
>> The Court has ruled that users—not craigslist—own the copyrights in their postings.
>> ... Craigslist finally conceded in Court that no such harm or impairment ever occurred.
>> Craigslist completely rewrote its Terms of Use, removing many of the most abusive clauses.
Everything above seems to be against Craigslist. Then why does 3taps have to agree to a settlement to pay Craigslist $1 million?
And if there are other parts of the court ruling that went against 3taps which this blog post doesn't mention, then how can Craigslist be forced to forward that money to EFF?
- mjn 11y agoWikipedia's summary of the case doesn't make it sound as positive for 3taps, especially as the status of the case (their motion to dismiss the case was denied) is not what they wanted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist_Inc._v._3Taps_Inc.#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist_Inc._v._3Taps_Inc.#... Two significant problems for them: the Court sided with Craigslist's view that 3taps knew its authorization to access the website was revoked when it received Craigslist's cease-and-desist letter, so scraping past that date might constitute unauthorized access; and Craigslist's change to its ToS on July 16, 2012 to claim copyright on posts was valid, so reuse of their material after that date could constitute a copyright violation subject to statutory damages.