Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Two things: CL didn't pull back as far as it could of: > This new language was a marked difference from prior Terms of Use (2008/2011), which clearly stated “craigslist does not claim ownership of content that its users post.” While this clear language has not returned to the TOU, the same result comes from the non-exclusive license currently in the TOU.

And why can't the EFF just quote the current passage in its changed form? The post itself is still unclear. Is this the affected passage?

> You automatically grant and assign to CL, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant and assign to CL, a perpetual, irrevocable, unlimited, fully paid, fully sub-licensable (through multiple tiers), worldwide license to copy, perform, display, distribute, prepare derivative works from (including, without limitation, incorporating into other works) and otherwise use any content that you post. You also expressly grant and assign to CL all rights and causes of action to prohibit and enforce against any unauthorized copying, performance, display, distribution, use or exploitation of, or creation of derivative works from, any content that you post (including but not limited to any unauthorized downloading, extraction, harvesting, collection or aggregation of content that you post).

http://www.craigslist.org/about/terms.of.use



You also expressly grant and assign to CL all rights and causes of action to prohibit and enforce against any unauthorized...

How is this in effect any different from a non-exclusive license? Are they going to ask each person if they gave permission for something that was cross posted multiple places? At least now people can post an ad to multiple place, but CL wants to make sure that they aren't crawled?

If I were CL, I'd be more worried about losing Safe Harbor protection than whether or not I owned user submissions.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: