Slashdot Mirror
Craigslist Forced To Reveal a Seller's Identity
mi writes "The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts has won a judgment compelling Craigslist to reveal the identity of 'Daniel,' who tried to sell two tickets to the Oscar ceremony recently. The plaintiff's argument against such sales is scary and can be taken very far very quickly: 'If you don't know who's inside the theater, it's very difficult to provide security.' Craigslist's handling of the case may be even scarier, however — instead of fighting tooth-and-nail for the user's privacy, as we expect Google, Yahoo, and AOL, and even credit-card issuers to do, Craigslist simply did not show up in court and lost by default."
Here's an idea: Check people's ID at the door if you want to know who's in the theater.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/privacy.html
And look at the terms of use, particularly item 2.
Was Craigslist expected to not reveal the seller?
Well I found my current apartment through the site, but it took weeks of combing out the wankers before I did. But in San Francisco it's something of an institution so you've got to use it.
Craigslist doesn't manage auctions.
They do charge for job postings.
Only because it is blatantly illegal to do so, and they were taken to court on the issue.
I've gone to the Oscars.
When you are invited, you get a packet of various tickets. The tickets could be parceled out from a production company which gets a lot of say, ten of them. Or if you are a nominee, you may be sent them directly via an agent or manager. In the packet of tickets-- one is for the ceremony, another for the "Governor's Ball" afterwards. The Kodak theater has three or four levels inside-- if you are a nominee you have access to the bottom "floor level" and without the appropriate pass you will be kindly asked to stay up top. You also, if I remember right, get some kind of parking ticket that you give when you turn in your car to the valet, or that your limo driver keeps if you've got one of those. I could be wrong about that last part- cant' remember.
Here are some reasons for the tickets (and not a list): First of all, the list of attendees changes up to the last second. People are planning to go, then drop out, or have other people go in their place... it's a very fluid attendance list and I think it would be pretty difficult to keep it up to date. I'm thinking its much easier to let individuals deal with the politics of who's using the tickets than to try to centralize it. Plus, there would be people BSing to get their names added on the attendant list all over the place if it was as easy as calling in. Sure, tickets can be forged too, but I think they are individually numbered (?) and have glossy rainbow printing and stuff all over them...
Also-- have you ever seen the red carpet? It's about the width of a city street. Fans on one side holding signs, and the press on the other holding cameras, both on bleachers. The red carpet is fast moving and chaotic. When you go to the oscars, you are part of a 45-minute flow of people who drop off their cars, head through a giant tent-like thing where they take your ticket, then you pass through one of about twelve metal detectors, then proceed through the red carpet. Among the actors and well-known celebrities are the majority-- these include more technical nominees (sound, sfx), producers, writers, etc. And most people-- celebrities and non- bring dates and family. It would be a real pain to ID every single person who passes through, and the flow of people would virtually grind to a halt...
I suppose they COULD use a list.. but it would be just as much of a cluster fuck I think.
Hope this helps...
You are wrong, read the law and read my statement again. It specifically exempts landlords that LIVE IN THE BUILDING, if the building is a small multi-family home, which is what I said.
If the landlord does not live in the building, or the building is larger than a certain size than that exemption is not given.
Clearly you have never actually read the law and are just eating up the garbage laid out by the network talking heads.
And while we are at it illegal means criminal, a lawsuit based discrimination in this case would be a civil remedy, therefore your characterization of discrimination as illegal is wrong.
I do not like discrimination, and I do not practice it ever BUT you can control who you rent/sell your HOME to. HOME not talking about anything else here.
Revenues about $150 million, operating cost about $15 Million, rest is profit split among the owners, 45% Craig Newmark, 30% Jim Buckmaster, 25% eBay
http://valleywag.com/375850/is-craigslist-worth-5-billion
The real question is why the MPAA spent the money on lawyers and court costs when the could have just bought the tickets!
Clearly it's a case of "when all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails". They handed the issue to the legal department and, because the legal department is nothing but lawyers, their immediate response was "let's get a judge to make them reveal the seller's identity". Obviously, a better plan would have been to email the seller and sucker him into revealing his identity one way or another. If nothing else, they could have emailed the seller with "I am interested in the tickets" and simply looked at the return mail address when he answered. That's all craigslist really has anyway.
And FWIW, it's the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, not the MPAA.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Maybe they were trying to set a precedent, rather than simply slapping a ticket scalper. Though, I doubt a default judgment carries much influence. Either way, it looks like I need to find an alternative eBay alternative.
I just read Slashdot for the articles.