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."
Hai Guise (Score:5, Funny)
I got two oscar tickets. Anyone want em? Asking $600 OBO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hai Guise (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least it's not like Digg, where nobody reads anything!
Re:Hai Guise (Score:5, Funny)
Services not found on Craigslist: (Score:5, Funny)
Legal representation
Well it's the court's fault. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well it's the court's fault. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well it's the court's fault. (Score:5, Funny)
Now they will have to post the judgment in Missed Connections.
You: A worldwide free classified ad website that has become something of an internet phenomenon, posting furniture, prostitutes, musician-wanted, and dating ads all in one convenient place.
Me: The judgment issued the other day when you defaulted on your court appearance to defend against my issuance.
mw4mw mw4w mw4m w4mw m4mw w4ww m4mm mm4m (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe Craig was too busy responding to bots and picture collectors. Real results takes all day!
The perfect place to buy tickets is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The perfect place to buy tickets is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is why the MPAA spent the money on lawyers and court costs when the could have just bought the tickets!
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Why do the even HAVE tickets? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. I just spent my last mod point. You're insightful and funny all at once.
Even many factories have lists of valid guests. You don't just wave a piece of paper around and get in without being on a list.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (Score:5, Funny)
And good thing they didn't. Tom Cruise and "-above-" pretty much includes 95% of the human population.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The tickets are for guests and for people like the writers who most people wouldn't recognize on sight. In any case, if they were worried about who was in the theater they could simply check the ticket to the invite list and to a photo ID. This sounds like a lousy public relations excuse for performing a shakedown. While Daniel shouldn't have sold or have planned to sell his ticket, it isn't as if he is going to suddenly let in Osama bin Laden who will commit a terrorist attack there. They do have metal
Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides this, has anything illegal actually happened?
They say 'our tickets can not be resold'. That's not a law, that's not a court order, that's not anything other than a company whining about someone doing something they don't like with a piece of paper they gave away or sold themselves.
This isn't even software with a stupid license agreement. It's a physical ticket.
Going further, one has to assume the 'seller' really does have the ticket and really will make a sale. Why do you think they wait on drug busts until AFTER an undercover has completed the purchase? Even if the sale were somehow illegal, it hasn't actually happened.
All this in addition to their insane claims about 'security'. If it was so important they WOULD be checking ID.
Re:Why do the even HAVE tickets? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
You're assuming that Mr. Cruise is invited. The way he's embarrassed the Academy in recent years, I'd be surprised if they'd want him to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Tom Cruise is who they are afraid of. Well, him and Xenu.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To be fair, Xenu flew a bunch of people he didn't like into a volcano, coach.
Re: (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:5, Informative)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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 tic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, i'm sure they're deathly afraid of someone showing up and not being perfectly civil or clapping on queue. Understandable, but then it's their job to control who they let in. Lawsuits to find out who's trading slips of paper around are another example of the abuse our legal system allows.
The better question - is CL going to just ignore the judgement like they did the subpoena?
Does Daniel have any rights in this matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you follow the plaintiff's argument, who cares who Daniel is? All that matters is who Daniel gives the tickets too.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 law
What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... chinatown?
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
They should have shown up, they took a chance for good PR and turned it into really bad PR.
Whether the Academy had any right to that information has no bearing on this, they should have shown up to court and fought. Now anybody who wants their data will just file a suit.
Re: (Score:2)
I expected the "We do this for the common good" people to get the same earful for not defending their users from the American movie-people [wikipedia.org], as Yahoo! and Google (the "Do no evil" people) have gotten for yielding to Chinese government [hrw.org].
Because to continue holding CraigsList in the same regard as before after this is quite hypocritical...
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
They certainly have one.
The same argument can be used to defend Google and Yahoo! For example: do you really want us to put even more ads, so we can afford a private army to defend our data-centers in China?
At least, Yahoo tried, and gave up only after exhausting all legal options. CraigsList did not even show up in court — much less filed an appeal!..
Re: (Score:2)
They certainly have one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They do charge for job postings.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 [valleywag.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Craigslist has to be about the seediest place to do business on the internet.
I suspect you haven't been around "the internet" very much. You're honestly trying to say craigslist is as seedy as illegal drug sellers, offshore quasi-legal casino's, websites selling pirated software, malware/adware "free" software sites, or any number of other seedy places I haven't listed?
Craiglist is certainly no-frills, but it's not really that seedy. It's no more seedy than the local free newspaper. I've bought and sold
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:craigslist could use some cleanup? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:craigslist could use some cleanup? (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn it. (Score:4, Funny)
Craigslist Forced? (Score:4, Funny)
More like CL didn't care. They didn't care enough to show up to court, so they didn't care enough to fight about it.
The sad thing is, I'm not really surprised. They have warnings in their real estate section of housing wanted/for sale that states that if you post something like "Only Mexican People Can Buy/Live-in My House" you will get fined - so they must be down with sharing your info when asked for it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
morons or liars? (Score:2, Insightful)
"...invitees to the Academy Awards show are explicitly told they cannot sell or give their tickets away."
What does "explicitly told" mean? It doesn't sound like a binding contract. Why don't they issue tickets that say non-transferable right on them and require id at the door?
"If you don't know who's inside the theater, it's very difficult to provide security," Quinto said.
If you're too stupid to keep a list of the people you've invited, with their ticket numbers, then providing security will indeed be di
If they're worried about who's in the theater... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're worried about who's in the theater, then it seems like they'd be more interested in the identity of those *buying* the tickets, no? Do they have prohibitions against giving the tickets away if you get them legitimately? Can I donate them to a charity auction, and do they send the Oscar Gestapo to the auction to fingerprint and photograph the winners at the charity auction?
If not, then why is Craigslist such a security threat?
Re:If they're worried about who's in the theater.. (Score:2)
I'm thinking they were more worried {pissed off} about who was selling their free tickets. 'Security' being the code word for 'whom should we exclude next year, because we don't like scalpers.'
You know .. similar to what the NFL did a year or so ago with the tickets they give players.
Obligatory Simpsons (Score:5, Funny)
Have you seen the CL privacy page? (Score:5, Informative)
And look at the terms of use, particularly item 2.
Was Craigslist expected to not reveal the seller?
Re:Have you seen the CL privacy page? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.craigslist.org/about/privacy.policy.html [craigslist.org]
The first link I got from the craigslist home page. I thought it was funny that it was 404ed. The correct link I got from the terms of use page.
However, if you read the correct privacy page, it says this:
We don't share your information with third parties for marketing purposes.
I'd say this isn't marketing purposes.
Re:Have you seen the CL privacy page? (Score:5, Informative)
Craigslist may disclose information about its users if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to respond to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process.
If you look at that, there's really no deal at all. Craigslist is doing exactly what they said they would
Exactly (Score:2)
Re:Have you seen the CL privacy page? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sucks, but... (Score:2)
This is certainly a crappy decision, but what could they have done being a relatively ad free company? I'm sure whatever revenue they do have go to salaries and server maintenance; I'd be surprised if they were very profitable at all - that's not the point of Craigslist. The rich guys won.
It's probably a good thing they didn't show up. (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a handy tip I've come up with to determine, in a business vs. business lawsuit, who will win: Who has the most money to spend on lawyers?
If CL had attempted to fight the suit, with its meager resources, it would have lost. Then, the case may have stood as a precedent to future such cases.
CL was smart,
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
That's a poor argument (Score:2)
'If you don't know who's inside the theater, it's very difficult to provide security.'
Seems like a stupid statement at face value. But suing Craigslist for the identity of the seller won't even achieve the stated goal. If the seller sold the tickets, then he/she is not inside the theater, and thus they won't need security customized for his/her particular super-powers.
"Papers Please" (Score:5, Insightful)
You:But all I want to do is to see the movie.
Clerk:Sorry Sir but we have to know who is in the theater. It is afterall for your own protection.
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?
Silly (Score:4, Insightful)
This strikes me as the classic fallacy for suing online service providers, to challenge the messenger for the messages that they deliver. Craigslist is about as fast and lose as sites seem to come, and all that's needed is a legitimate email address to post ~ which costs about five cents and ten minutes to set up. The service has absolutely no guarantees of poster accuracy, honesty, or legitimacy ~ honestly, about on par with a web board. Keeping eBay and Amazon on their toes is valid, in my book, solely for the fact that their sites enable transactions, but beyond that, it's buyer beware.
This lawsuit makes about as much sense as bringing the FTC in to a flea market. You can't impose any sorts of regulations without completely warping the existing system, in which case it's no longer a flea market.
security is an excuse (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not surprised they didn't bother to show
Neither am I, though it seems more like arrogance and stupidity than laziness, to me. "We don't have to show up, they can't make us do anything! We're all the way up in San Francisco, why should we have to go to Los Angeles for this?"
Re:Craigslist (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly, or they realized that they'd lose the case and chose to not bother wasting money on it.
While the reason is bunk, the people running the event do have the right to keep people out if they want to. People who are invited don't have the right to sell.
I'm not really sure how it's in the best interest of people that use Craig's list to have them wasting money defending such clear cut cases in court.
I mean seriously, you don't really have to be an attorney to recognize that a private event run by a private organization that stipulates as a condition for receiving an invite that the tickets are non-transferable would have the legal right to deny entrance to those people.
The suit here is so that they can figure out who it is and avoid giving the person tickets in the future.
I'm not really sure what part of that is actually shady. (Excepting of course the explanation of why it's necessary to make the tickets non-transferable)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They would need to claim the right under criminal law, or possibly trademark/copyright law. They can't claim it under the criminal since they aren't the State.
If I gave a copy of my keys to a friend, and it later appeared on craigslist, would I have the right to the name of the seller? The property wasn't stolen, and I have no particular rights attached to that key.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly the only useful thing about Craigslist in my opinion is the musicians board. Everything else is so polluted with scams, but the musicians board is actually useful. I found the singer and bassist for my band there, for example. :p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I FLY RC (Score:2)
and let me tell you, it's been a boon to get used gear cheaply, and locally. TY CL!
Oh, and the hookers are funny to browse when your bored (not that I'd every pay 1 red cent for sex)
Re: (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.
That isn't really the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's potential here for an unfortunate precedent.
IANAL, but I think a judgement without representation from the accused isn't very good precedent (if at all) and is easily overturned.
Re:That isn't really the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I believe it's pretty standard. In a case of "your word against his", if his is silent, yours wins. I was told that you should always fight a ticket if you think that the officer won't show up (but more and more officers are being required to show up, so I think this is less true now)....it's basically the same thing. If Craigslist didn't care enough to show up, they didn't care enough about the outcome. Of course, there's also something to be said if notification was not properly handled.
Layne
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But wait, are you saying that if a cop doesn't show up to fight a ticket and you win by default, that judgement can be used as a precedent in a future case? I find that hard to beleive.
Re:That isn't really the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Since when does Craigslist operate auctions? (Score:4, Informative)
Craigslist doesn't manage auctions.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because when the results of the decision are presented to them in the form of a subpoena, they will cave and release the info. In other words, they are sticking to their principles just enough to have bad stuff happen, but not enough to actually prompt any change for the better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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."
I aint buyin' it.
More likely it went like this:
(Pffffffffffffffft... 'ere)"Dude, we gotta do something about this."
(thanks) "Yeah."
"We should like, get in a cab and go over to eff and get brad or mike to fix this."
(pffffffffffffffft) *cough* Yeah.
"Ok. cool. when's it due?"
"(pfffffffft)lemme chec
Re: (Score:2)
Won't someone PULLEEEZZE think of the security!?!
Have you people forgotten 9/11!?!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you sell your Oscar tickets on Craigslist, the terrorists win.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly would they appeal? They didn't show up and presumably didn't notify the court that they couldn't show up either.
Appeals are done for procedural errors in the way the case was handled. They don't address the guilt or innocence nor do they change the verdict. Once a person is found to be guilty for instance, that question isn't dealt with after that point. A court may overturn a ruling, but they aren't going to do so in the case of a default judgment. There may be grounds if it could be proven th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)