Does this mean it's okay to scrape / clone any user generated content without legal repercussions? I can make a HN clone that copies all the comments and everything and things would be just peachy legally?
Also, the specific reason the copyright claims were dismissed in this case is that craigslist does not have an exclusive license on its posts. If Hacker News' terms exclusively license comments (which I doubt, but I haven't checked), that would make this particular ruling less relevant. It is also possible that the comments' authors could make claims against you, should they wish to do so.
I genuinely wonder this. Can I say, "it's OK for XYZ to scrape, but not ABC?" (Or is it general use -- scraping OK/not OK?)
I think it's different for API usage, because you enter an agreement with an entity by signing up, etc. I'm speaking specifically to the unauthenticated scraping/indexing.
That said, once I've given it to you, if you choose to give it to someone else, I have no claim against that someone (although I might against you, depending on our contract). That's the heart of 3taps' position as I understand it; they get craigslist post data from third party sources like search engines, instead of scraping craigslist, and so do not have a contract with craigslist.
What about "anonymous" scraping, however? (I put it in quotes because I know you can reverse DNS/UserAgent/etc. identify... but that's simple to spoof, and we're discussing within a sophisticated context.)
Can I say that "OOgle" can use my data (because I want visitors) but others can't? (To complicate, can I exclude only certain, specified, parties and include all others?)
To clarify, my meaning was that among the various potential legal impediments to scraping and displaying website contents, this judgement would set precedent for copyright only, if anything.