Craigslist Forced To Reveal a Seller's Identity 314
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."
Does Daniel have any rights in this matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
craigslist could use some cleanup? (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally I would completely agree that privacy must be protected wherever and whenever possible. Both my heart and my head tells me that privacy is an essential right.
Having said that, could craigslist use a little bit of "cleanup" from the scam artists, vice decoy hookers (keep the real ones!), and other bad elements that are hiding behind the anonimity of CL as an essential part of their scam?
I realize that the key word there is "bad"-- who is to judge what is 'bad' or 'good' except the other party in the transaction?
I just wonder if CL purposefully ignored the court date in hopes of such a cleanup, or if they were simply too busy smoking some dope and selling some old furniture (both are fine hobbies to have) to remember to go downtown.
Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (Score:3, Interesting)
nobody here respects the concept (Score:4, Interesting)
of a corporation dragging you into court on bullshit pretenses
given that thought, not showing up to court is really the only course of action you can take
of course, there are also those who want to see someone else fight their battles. this is the only reason in which you yourself who do not respect the legal status quo can expect someone else to respect the legal status quo for you
and to some extent, this is a valid attitude: if that someone else fighting for you is big and powerful while you are small and weak
but as others have noted, craigslist really is just craig and a few dudes in san francisco. they may have the exposure of a large corporation, btu they aren't a large corporation. as such, they are in the boat with you and me: someone else needs to fight this battle, or craigslist, due to the legal environment of our modern times, needs to give in to reality and turn into a corporate turd pile and fund a bunch of corporate lawyer whores in order to retain its integrity in the face of such legal bullshit
i dunno, i'm torn. i say fuck the courts on the issue of corporate chicanery, ignore them. but then they win by default in terms of enforceable rulings. such that you have to fund the legions of corporate lawyer whores
or kill them all. hard to say
One possible explanation (Score:3, Interesting)
conform with the rest of the industry. (Score:5, Interesting)
'If you don't know who's inside the theater, it's very difficult to provide security.'
Then require people to show ID. Try to do security like the rest of the world. If you can sell tickets and not know who is at the Oscars, then what stops some one from tying up ticket holder and taking their tickets to the Oscars?
I'm simply do not understand what legal right one private organization has to enforce its policy on a completely unrelated organization?
Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't anyone just give their tickets to someone else if they are unable to go?
Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (Score:3, Interesting)
Using Tom Cruise as an example is a poor one. Of course the super celebrities get in without any hurdles. The people that are harder to keep track on is the people "behind the scenes". A lot of sound techies, video techies and crew are invited as well.
It's too much to ask for them to show an ID to be checked against the list?
Re:That isn't really the point... (Score:3, Interesting)
The people at Craigslist thought "What a bunch of fucking tools. I'm not interested in their 'authority', and I'm not going to take time out of my busy life to dignify them by coming and humbling myself before them."
Which is a perfectly appropriate response. When the rule are corrupt, ethical men do not allow themselves to be bound by them. If they are consistent about applying this policy, the seller won't be worse off.
Not about security... (Score:3, Interesting)
Easiest Way to Avoid Expense/Conflict (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds like Craigslist didn't want to give up the name outright, but they didn't want to enough to spend money to defend it in court either. Sort of like waiting until you get a subpoena before giving it up and then it's "Oh well, nothing I could do--don't sue me."
I wonder if the person in question knew about the lawsuit and, if so, could have sent his own representative.
A bigger question I have with these increasing attacks on privacy: How long before we start getting fake ids to protect our privacy from companies who seem all too will to give us up. For example, I found out my credit card now offers a different CC# to use on line so you have some layer of protection between your actual number, identity, etc. Not sure on how well that works, except that it should stop someone who has the number from using at large. I suppose it's a bit like PayPal. Although that still wouldn't help you if the company contacted Visa, MC, etc. and were able to get your ID through them. It would have to be like an off-shore PayPal that could verify a purchase or whatever needed verification, but kept your ID safe from even the ISPs.
How long before we need more layers of protection--where companies (and governments) can't just shut us down on a whim because we said something bad about them or sue us. Even if the individual is correct, very few people can afford to be sued by some company.
Re:The perfect place to buy tickets is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. When they saw the specific tickets, they'd know who the seller was.
Re:I FLY RC (Score:3, Interesting)
Either you are a woman, or you don't date.
We pay for sex. It may not be a direct cash transaction, but pay for it we do. We pay for it in meals, movies, flowers, jewelry, etc.
Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (Score:3, Interesting)
Original poster here. Nothing that I'm aware of would have stopped me from handing my ticket to a total stranger and letting them go instead. That said, it's not like they have NO IDEA who is actually going to show up. There is a lot of political wrangling before the event between various parties who want to get tickets. Academy members (who incidentally I didn't mention previously but typically with their families are the bulk of the audience), producers, agents-- lots of people want to go. So the tickets are rationed.. Interestingly, when I went (the year the Return of the King won, whenever that was-- Billy Crystal hosted), there were actually some seats still untaken. Don't know why that was.
One thing I will say fwiw about the oscars-- they are VERY VERY LONG. When you watch them at home, you talk to your friends, you get up to get some chips, etc. When you're actually at the Kodak theater, there aren't other distractions and only a few strangers near you to talk with. So I and a lot of people tended to get up during the commercial breaks, walk outside, have a drink (free!), socialize, and watch the show on the monitors for a segment or two before heading back in... a little "social time" so you're not just sitting there for hours and hours...
I understand that near the front of the stage (in camera range) they use "seat fillers" to temporarily fill the space of people who are taking a leak or whatever. A lot of people get loaded before the show- (you would too if you were nominated for an Oscar and potentially about to give a speech in front of a billion people), so it's not surprising everyone's running for the bathroom. Still, I think on TV you can often see the house only partially filled in wide shots. Most of the "missing" people are outside the theater getting drunk.
Re:That isn't really the point... (Score:1, Interesting)
Because when the results of the decision are presented to them in the form of a subpoena, they will cave and release the info.
But what happens if Craig's List never had or no longer has the information that is being subpoenaed?
Re:That isn't really the point... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (Score:3, Interesting)
Jurisdiction bites (Score:5, Interesting)
So, Craigslist is in San Francisco, yes? And the court case was in Los Angelos. Sure, it's the same state, but California is big, that's a full day's drive apart (8-12 hours depending on route). So, as usual, the people suing chose a venue that's not where the supposably offending business is located.
That's the real problem here. To expect someone to have to take 3 days off to fly or drive a long distance to attend each and every spurious lawsuit just means you can do a Denial of Service Real World... file lots of lawsuits until the airfare bankrupts the given target.
They could do it easily with out the court. (Score:3, Interesting)
So they're using the court system to figure out who to punish for doing something entirely legal?
I could see it if Daniel was under contract for the tickets, but if they just give him tickets with no stipulations, why should they get to enjoy the power of the courts and tax payer funding?
Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to buy the tickets off the guy, and as soon as you find out who is selling them, negate those tickets, then, as the buyer, refuse to pay for the now worthless tickets?
Woh, no money, no lawyers, and the seller gets screwed out of his tickets for trying to sell them. Done.
-Rick