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."

Comments

Why do the even HAVE tickets?

[superdave80]

If they want to know who is in the theater during the ceremony (for 'security' reasons... dun dun dun!), why do they even have physical tickets? Why not just a list of who can get in? Do the invitees REALLY have to show a ticket to get in? "Sorry, Mr. Cruise. No ticket, no entry!"

Re:What did you expect?

[EMeta]

Here's the problem. Craig doesn't want a huge organization. He doesn't want ads. He just wants to live semi-comfortably and have a functional website so people can use it.

Things this does not include:

Ads.
Huge profits.
Legal division.

Do we really want Craig to have to start putting ads everywhere so he can protect users that do stupid stuff? I don't.

Re:craigslist could use some cleanup?

[EMeta]

Should Craigslist be forced to pay for lawyers whenever someone posts something they shouldn't on their site? I say no. What did this guy ever do for them? Craig's not making any money off his posting. None. Why should it pay for lawyers for him?

Re:craigslist could use some cleanup?

[thrillseeker]

Why is this Craigslist's problem? There is no requirement that they fight to help you keep your anonymity. If Daniel doesn't like the result of the court's decision, he can hire his own attorney to fight it.

That isn't really the point...

[midnitewolf]

I don't blame the academy for wanting tighter security, and they have a valid reason for WANTING to know the identity, but security at the Oscars isn't Craigslist's responsibility, and they're not ENTITLED to that identity.

Forcing Craig's to stop the auction and prevent the sale? Reasonable. I would think that the extent of their liability would be to remove the auction of (what are presumably) non-transferrable tickets. Had they actually shown up in court, they could have had a good shot at protecting the sellers identity.

There's potential here for an unfortunate precedent.

Re:That isn't really the point...

[daveywest]

Explain to me why Craigslist would want or bother to pay for the legal defense of someone selling something they have no right to sell?

Perhaps if this had been an actual privacy issue, Craigs might feel inclined to step up.

Consider that the Academy has an established precedent of defending its legal rights. Ever wonder why you can rarely buy an Oscar on eBay?

Also, where does Craigs make any promise of privacy to it's users? The randomized emails they offer posters are just one step above the security provide by lock on your front door. If someone wants to get in there, they're not going through the lock, they're going through the decorative glass window.

Re:Have you seen the CL privacy page?

[LandDolphin]

This thread of replies should be mod'ed +5 informative. Why is it even news if it is in their privacy policy that they will turn over the information? Reading that kind of makes this a total non-story.

Re:The perfect place to buy tickets is...

[catmistake]

The real question is why the MPAA spent the money on lawyers and court costs when the could have just bought the tickets!