Slashdot Mirror
Craigslist Drops Exclusive License To Your Posts
First time accepted submitter Penurious Penguin writes "Last week Craigslist demanded exclusive license to the content you post there, an odd demand which would have prevented ad-content on Craigslist from being advertised anywhere else but Craigslist. Thankfully, today we read from the EFF, the Good News: Craigslist drops exclusive license to your posts. From the article: 'For many years, craigslist has been a good digital citizen. Its opposition to SOPA/PIPA was critically important, and it has been at the forefront of challenges to Section 230 and freedom of expression online. We understand that craigslist faces real challenges in trying to preserve its character and does not want third parties to simply reuse its content in ways that are out of line with its user community’s expectations and could be harmful to its users.
Nevertheless, it was important for craigslist to remove the provision because claiming an exclusive license to the user’s posts--to the exclusion of everyone, including the original poster--would have harmed both innovation and users’ rights, and would have set a terrible precedent. We met with craigslist to discuss this recently and are pleased about their prompt action.'"
There's really no way they could have enforced it anyway because it would have fallen in the lowest court, and indeed the ones that followed had they wished to appeal it.
Simply non-news. They screwed up, and caught it.
But other web sites may *try* to continue with this kind of bull shit. Again, it would never ever pass legal muster in a court, it's just asking for a huge class action (where no one wins except the lawyers)...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
You have no right!
Then all the post's selling dope and hookers could then turn around and say it wasn't theirs, that craigslist owned it. Then we can see how well their little ass headed ideas work for them, instead of having to scold them (and every other dumbshit company) like children.
The best way to solve the "problem" of other people using their data, is to fix their own search tools. Hell, just being able to search all locations within 100 miles would be nice. All these other websites pop up because there own presentation is so bad.
I am no lawyer (would appreciate it a lawyer to comment on this) but it seems obvious that CraigsList would be liable for user content if they claimed they owned it. People have been raped, murdered, robbed, and had identity stolen, from that website. I cringe when I apply for jobs using it as I know bad guys use it as well but I have to work right?
If I were a lawyer for these victims I would be drooling at the fact that CL claims they own that post and all its content in that scam!
http://saveie6.com/
No matter how much you pay lawyers to pretend it's true, boilerplate legalese can't remove your implicit copyright to your own works.
But the copyright and patent systems in the US are so messed up that most people think it's ok.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I am not a lawyer, but the law very often agrees with common sense. The owner is the one who created the content, and is responsible for the harm the content causes. The licensee, well, is like a common carrier. Unless the licensee chooses to modify the content, or filter content, he cannot be held responsible for the content.
I am not a lawyer, but the law very often agrees with common sense.
I laughed very heartily at this claim.
Lawyer here. GP seems correct to me (though this is largely outside my area of expertise) -- being the license holder of content (for copyright purposes) is simply an entirely different concept from having liability deriving from the creation or publication of the content. I don't know of a statute or case to cite for this proposition, but I wouldn't expect there to be any, just like I don't expect there to be case law explaining the difference between murder and kidnapping.
The reason is that either liability will have come from having posted the materials (for example, because making the post will itself be a material step in the commission of a crime), or being a publisher of the materials (this is true in traditional libel law, though websites like craigslist are usually protected by statutory safe harbors). In the former cases, Craigslist would not be liable regardless of who had what license to publish the material. In the latter case they would always have been liable. In either case, the terms of the copyright license change nothing. I am aware of no species of liability that attaches to becoming the exclusive licensee of copyrighted materials (someone may be able to come up with something, but it would have to be pretty obscure).
caritj.org
Craigslist could only wish that people who use their site use it because they want Craig Newmark to exclusively own the rights to their postings... People don't use craigslist because they want craigslist to own the content, they do it to sell something. If it isn't craigslist, it is one of the other 500 sites that do the same thing. I think most people who stop using that site if they thought for one second that what they are submitting is not under their control.
what if I only wanted to share my post with the community where I posted it? What if I don't want my ad read outside of my city?
Then maybe the Internet isn't the most appropriate forum for your post?
I have found there are just two ways to go.
It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow. -REK, Jr.