5 ms·

(I am going to assume we are still talking about the article.) First of all, trespass is a red herring in this case. Defendent used Google's Cache -- NOT the C

by nmrm2 11y ago

(I am going to assume we are still talking about the article.) First of all, trespass is a red herring in this case. Defendent used Google's Cache -- NOT the Craigslist website -- to gather data. Craigslist's claim is that accessing a Google Cache of its website constitutes unauthorized use. If we're going to resort to ill-fitting metaphores, it's closer to the owner of a piece of artwork posting public notice that their art can only be viewed in their studio, permitting a public gallery to show that art, and then suing you for trespassing because you looked at their art while it was in a public gallery. Craigslist asserting copyright claims in this case is plausible if precarious (the very quietly changed their ToS just 4 days prior to filing suit -- that's bullshit if I've ever smelled it. Furthermore, as an aside, I wonder whether the rise of walled data gardens shouldn't give us ethical pause). However, Craigslist's claim to CFAA violation in this case is absurd and dangerous. Period.

rayiner 11y ago
I didn't know about the Google Cache thing. The Wiki page doesn't mention it. That definitely changes at least the CFAA part of the case. Did they ever scrape CL directly?
- deelowe 11y ago
  Read the link. The details of this are in there.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  "the policy of 3taps with regards to Craigslist data is that any sourcing of that data for insertion via our API be done without scraping or visiting Craigslist at all." (original emphasis) Obviously, I don't know whether they followed that policy. However, the important point is that it sounds like Craigslist's argument applies regardless of whether 3taps was scraping directly from CL. Here's the source: https://3taps.com/papers/response%20to%20%20c_n_d%20letter%20(March%2013,%202012).doc https://3taps.com/papers/response%20to%20%20c_n_d%20letter%2...
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  After they were told to C&D and sued by Craigslist, they decided to try a cute workaround and pull the Craigslist listings from cached Google copies instead, which didn't quite work out so well for them in the end.
- x0x0 11y ago
  yes, both padmapper and 3taps were scraping CL directly for some of the time padmapper was scraping, got C&D, so moved to 3taps 3taps got C&D (and was playing dumb games like switching ip addresses to avoid blocks), then moved to scraping CL posts out of google's cache, claiming they therefore weren't bound by terms and conditions of CL. After CL blocked google from caching posts, 3taps went back to scraping CL.
  - briandear 11y ago
    Ultimately, 3taps knew they were wrong no matter how many ways they try to justify it. For all of their time and energy, they should have just built a new craigslist.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    Was blocking caching on Google what he referred to as "interfering with Google and other search engines"? That's laying it thick.
balls187 11y ago
> If we're going to resort to ill-fitting metaphores, it's closer to the owner of a piece of artwork posting public notice that their art can only be viewed in their studio, permitting a public gallery to show that art, and then suing you for trespassing because you looked at their art while it was in a public gallery. Changing the scenario slightly makes this seem far less absurd: you took a photo of the art piece while it was on display at a public gallery, then used your own photo commercially. > the very quietly changed their ToS just 4 days prior to filing suit -- that's bullshit if I've ever smelled it From the article, CL changed their ToS, and after a month sent a Cease and Desist Letter to 3Tap. After that, they required CL poster to agree to new copyright rules, and then 4 days later sued 3Tap. It's not clear if that later change was also a change in their T's and C's.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Changing the scenario slightly makes this seem far less absurd: you took a photo of the art piece while it was on display at a public gallery, then used your own photo commercially. But that would be copyright infringement, not trespass. The CFAA charge is still unfounded.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > you took a photo of the art piece while it was on display at a public gallery, then used your own photo commercially. Find me a single example of an artist successfully suing for trespassing in such a situation. CL's only plausible claim is to copyright infringement. They should stick to that claim. > CL changed their ToS, and after a month sent a Cease and Desist Letter to 3Tap. 1. After "less than a month". 2. 3Taps replied to the Cease and Desist Letter stating that it didn't make any sense because the C&D letter requested that 3Taps stop accessing CL, but 3Taps wasn't accessing CL directly. 3Taps assumed this was an adequate response (and asssumed their initial behavior was okay) because the explicit caveat to the explicit "use our data" invitation from CL executives was that such use shouldn't over-tax CL's bandwidth. At that point, to quote the article (emph. mine), "craigslist concocted a scheme to allow it to assert ownership over copyrights to user postings so it could bring copyright infringement claims against 3taps and other innovators who accepted Mr. Newmark's invitation. Without notice to its users, craigslist inserted language into its posting process that it claims gave it an exclusive license to user posts. Four days later, craigslist sued 3taps."

by nmrm2 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

I didn't know about the Google Cache thing. The Wiki page doesn't mention it. That definitely changes at least the CFAA part of the case. Did they ever scrape CL directly?

deelowe 11y ago
Read the link. The details of this are in there.
nmrm2 11y ago
"the policy of 3taps with regards to Craigslist data is that any sourcing of that data for insertion via our API be done without scraping or visiting Craigslist at all." (original emphasis) Obviously, I don't know whether they followed that policy. However, the important point is that it sounds like Craigslist's argument applies regardless of whether 3taps was scraping directly from CL. Here's the source: https://3taps.com/papers/response%20to%20%20c_n_d%20letter%20(March%2013,%202012).doc https://3taps.com/papers/response%20to%20%20c_n_d%20letter%2...
res0nat0r 11y ago
After they were told to C&D and sued by Craigslist, they decided to try a cute workaround and pull the Craigslist listings from cached Google copies instead, which didn't quite work out so well for them in the end.
x0x0 11y ago
yes, both padmapper and 3taps were scraping CL directly for some of the time padmapper was scraping, got C&D, so moved to 3taps 3taps got C&D (and was playing dumb games like switching ip addresses to avoid blocks), then moved to scraping CL posts out of google's cache, claiming they therefore weren't bound by terms and conditions of CL. After CL blocked google from caching posts, 3taps went back to scraping CL.
- briandear 11y ago
  Ultimately, 3taps knew they were wrong no matter how many ways they try to justify it. For all of their time and energy, they should have just built a new craigslist.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  Was blocking caching on Google what he referred to as "interfering with Google and other search engines"? That's laying it thick.

balls187 11y ago

> If we're going to resort to ill-fitting metaphores, it's closer to the owner of a piece of artwork posting public notice that their art can only be viewed in their studio, permitting a public gallery to show that art, and then suing you for trespassing because you looked at their art while it was in a public gallery. Changing the scenario slightly makes this seem far less absurd: you took a photo of the art piece while it was on display at a public gallery, then used your own photo commercially. > the very quietly changed their ToS just 4 days prior to filing suit -- that's bullshit if I've ever smelled it From the article, CL changed their ToS, and after a month sent a Cease and Desist Letter to 3Tap. After that, they required CL poster to agree to new copyright rules, and then 4 days later sued 3Tap. It's not clear if that later change was also a change in their T's and C's.

icebraining 11y ago
Changing the scenario slightly makes this seem far less absurd: you took a photo of the art piece while it was on display at a public gallery, then used your own photo commercially. But that would be copyright infringement, not trespass. The CFAA charge is still unfounded.
nmrm2 11y ago
> you took a photo of the art piece while it was on display at a public gallery, then used your own photo commercially. Find me a single example of an artist successfully suing for trespassing in such a situation. CL's only plausible claim is to copyright infringement. They should stick to that claim. > CL changed their ToS, and after a month sent a Cease and Desist Letter to 3Tap. 1. After "less than a month". 2. 3Taps replied to the Cease and Desist Letter stating that it didn't make any sense because the C&D letter requested that 3Taps stop accessing CL, but 3Taps wasn't accessing CL directly. 3Taps assumed this was an adequate response (and asssumed their initial behavior was okay) because the explicit caveat to the explicit "use our data" invitation from CL executives was that such use shouldn't over-tax CL's bandwidth. At that point, to quote the article (emph. mine), "craigslist concocted a scheme to allow it to assert ownership over copyrights to user postings so it could bring copyright infringement claims against 3taps and other innovators who accepted Mr. Newmark's invitation. Without notice to its users, craigslist inserted language into its posting process that it claims gave it an exclusive license to user posts. Four days later, craigslist sued 3taps."