Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpcan | Hacker News Reader

I think everyone should just step back and look at the big picture.

This guy is finding any means necessary to add Craiglist data back into his application and Craigslist does not want him to. I think the "gray" area is pretty black and white. Craigslist said no. He's doing it anyway - even if indirectly.

Here's how I see it:

Me: Don't go in my house.

You: But you left the back door unlocked by accident, so I thought I'd just come in and eat your food.

In the real world this would not be acceptable.

Even though we are talking apples, bananas, and oranges, the same ethical perspective should be employed. Craig said no, so we respect his wishes. It's the RIGHT thing to do. If he adds an API someday, then he's sharing the key to his house with us, until then. Doors are locked, too bad, move on.

View on HN

I think you need to take one more step back. Craigslist doesn't own the listing data on their site. They even say so and for a VERY important reason.

If they own the listing data, they're responsible for it's content. So, in some cases, they'd be responsible for selling sex, drugs, and stolen property. Not to mention responsible for a murder or two.

As soon as they claim they own the user generated content, they'll be opening themselves to thousands of lawsuits for their complicity in thousands of illegal acts.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicatio...

I'm not talking about who owns information.

My point is that company A is asking company B not to use the content that was submitted directly to company A's site on company B's site.

Company B is finding a round-about way to do it anyway.

In my opinion, this is the wrong thing to do. They should respect the wishes of company A and just not do it because they were told/asked not to.

I believe that just because you "can" doesn't always mean you "should".

So? Microsoft, Autodesk, Dell, EA, etc. would prefer you not be able to sell used copies of software or hardware. As long as it's legal, what's wrong with doing so?

I agree that legal is not equivalent to right, but in this case, I don't see the moral argument against this. Everyone benefits from this; the overall benefit to society is positive.

In my opinion, this is the wrong thing to do. They should respect the wishes of company A and just not do it because they were told/asked not to.

So it's wrong to jailbreak your iPhone because Apple would prefer that you didn't, even though it's explicitly legal?

It it invalid to apply analogies involving physical property to intellectual property. The two are not similar enough for that to be a convincing argument, especially since mere facts aren't protected intellectual property at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural

This seems to always be the reply when analogies come up, which is why I said it was apples, bananas, and oranges.

The point being, what's mine is mine, and if I say you can't have it, I want you to respect my wishes. Sure you can probably justify endlessly, or interpret differently, or stretch the truth, or bend the rules, but one business is saying, don't use our data this way, and regardless of this, the other business is finding a way to use the data.

Seems wrong to me.

EDIT:

Because I can't reply deeper to these threads, I have to edit here.

The "mine" above is not intended to be in regards to the information or content on Craigslist. I'm not saying they own it.

I think there is a relationship between the person who posted the information to Craigslist and Craigslist itself. I don't think anyone has a right to become some part of that relationship without both sides agreeing.

Maybe it's because I'm a freelancer. If I have a relationship with a Client to build them something, and someone else decides, of their own accord, that they are now part of that relationship, I have the right to tell them to back off, and I believe they should respect my wishes.

I'm not talking data ownership. I'm not talking about legal matters. I'm saying, human to human, they should just be cool with Craigslist wishes and go another way.

"what's mine is mine"

Craigslist postings aren't Craigslist's in a legally or practically meaningful way. This is the crux of the matter. The owners are the posters, and few if any of them would object to increased visibility.

> The point being, what's mine is mine, and if I say you can't have it, I want you to respect my wishes.

As far as I know, Craigslist doesn't own the facts contained in a listing, nor does it have a claim to the aggregation of such facts, so Craigslist doesn't have a legal or moral claim here.

Yes, many people see it this way, while many see it as black and white in the other direction: CL doesn't own the content on their site (this is a fact) and thus has no say in how others use it (debatable).

Mix black and white together, and you get... gray!

If I throw diamonds from the street onto your front yard, then I just walk away and leave forever, who owns those diamonds? Can your neighbors storm your yard and take them, or are they yours?

Can you now defend your property and keep people away from those diamonds?

If they get them, can you fight to get them back? They were taken from YOUR property after all.

What if I threw them right into your living room?

I'd say a more accurate analogy is like this:

CL: Don't go into my house

You: But you let Mr. Google make an exact copy of everything in your house, how about if I use that?

Mr. Google: Help yourself.

That is exactly the issue in a nutshell, even though the armchair lawyers on HN don't want to believe it.

Craigslist said no. The user that posted the data to Craigslist did not give Padmapper or 3Tap permission to copy their listing. 3Tap and Padmapper did anyway. The Google Cache, for legal purposes is Craigslist's site if it is a cached copy of the Craigslist site. Google has a legitimate fair use argument that the cache is directly related to its primary non-infringing use of search, which is why it gets to cache the site. Google does not get any copyrights to the cached sites; the copyrights remain with the owners.

Thus, the problem remains that 3Tap and Padmapper are violating Craiglist's copyright and its TOS. They could also be violating state and federal laws.

You're incorrect. There are two related issues here: access to Craigslist and potential IP issues. If Craigslist tells you not to access Craigslist, presumably there is some sort of legal remedy if you continue to do so. As a result, Padmapper no longer accesses Craigslist. Neither Padmapper nor 3taps access Craigslist, so this is not an issue. If Google told 3taps to stop accessing their cache in that manner, they'd probably have to stop.

As far as IP goes, Craigslist does not own the copyright to the posts on their site. The posters do. Even if Craigslist wrote all the postings themselves, the factual information (price, number of bedrooms, location) could still be copied because facts are not protected intellectual property.

I don't see how you're any less of an armchair lawyer than we are, and to top it off, you're wrong. (EDIT: Oops, I've come across another one of your comments where you say you're a lawyer.)

> I don't see how you're any less of an armchair lawyer than we are, and to top it off, you're wrong. (EDIT: Oops, I've come across another one of your comments where you say you're a lawyer.)

Considering that, I would expect a more detailed analysis.

I'm not being paid for this analysis. I'm briefly popping in during break periods.

I'm presenting a basic overview of the facts and current state of the law. I limit my comments to what I can type during my breaks. Consequently, my analysis is spread out over multiple comments. If you want a more detailed analysis with every comment, you can pay me or wait for a lawyer with plenty of free time on his hands to summarize things for you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com