Craigslist's Dumb Lawsuit Against Spam Tools Provider
from the what-are-they-thinking? dept
It's hard to come up with an adjective to describe Craigslist's decision to sue Red Trumpet other than "dumb." Nothing good will come of this lawsuit for a variety of reasons, and Craigslist is asking for trouble in filing it. Now, I can understand why it sounded like a good idea. Last year, we wrote about the increasing problem of spam on Craigslist, highlighting how a variety of spammers had figured out ways around each attempt by Craiglist to stop the spam. And, yes, we absolutely agree that spam on Craigslist is a problem and a nuisance, and it's good that Craigslist is working hard to try to stop it. But that doesn't make this lawsuit make sense. The full lawsuit is below (it's a bit long), and highlights all of the different claims that Craigslist is making against Red Trumpet, a company that offers tools and services to help advertisers post messages on Craigslist (some of which may be spammy, though, certainly not all):Next, Craigslist is making a really weak DMCA claim here. It's claiming that its various anti-spam technologies (captchas, phone verification, etc.) act as "technological protection measures" that Red Trumpet is circumventing... and thus running afoul of the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules. But the circumvention has nothing to do with violating Craigslist's "copyright," though the lawsuit makes a half-hearted attempt to claim that it does.
Then, there's the trademark claims. There are a few different ones, but it argues that Red Trumpet is violating Craigslist's trademark by mentioning Craigslist on its website and in its ads. While again, you can see why this is annoying to Craigslist, if the company is accurately describing services it provides (the ability to post on Craigslist) it's difficult to see the "confusion" being caused. The ad in question doesn't appear to imply any endorsement at all by Craigslist. And, does Craigslist really want to open up a can of worms concerning trademarks being used in ads? After all, there must be a ton of posts on Craigslist that mention trademarks.
Finally, there's Craigslist claiming that Red Trumpet violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by accessing its site despite violating its terms of use. Does this sound familiar? It's the same argument that was used to try to punish Lori Drew, and was recently tossed out by a judge. Basically, it's claiming that if you happen to violate the terms of use of a site, and then still access the site, you've effectively "hacked" into the site. This is a really bad reading of the law, which is why it was good that the Drew ruling got tossed out. So why is Craigslist trying to re-establish that as a rule?
Yes, clearly, Craigslist is upset about the spam on the site -- and it should be. Plenty of users are upset about it, and Craigslist wants to help those users, help itself and stop the spam. But this particular lawsuit, with these claims, seem highly problematic -- such that even if Craigslist wins, the precedents it sets could come back to haunt Craigslist... and many other parts of the internet as well. Is Craigslist really so desperate to stop spam that it's willing to do all this other damage as well?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, hacking, liability, safe harbors, spam, trademark
Companies: craigslist, red trumpet
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
someone enlighten me
Could you actually make a company to C&D if they are making a nuisance? For example, if someone keeps on following you everywhere, and it's bugging you, you can make him stop, right? And if someone keep on sending your mails to annoy you, you can make the person stop, right?
So if you view craigslist as a property, and this company keeps on spamming the site causing a nuisance, couldn't they get a C&D on this company and make them stop? I mean, craigslist probably have the right to stop this service from using their site? something like Red trumpet and the users of red trumpet are prohibited from using this site, or something like that.
I don't know if this has any legal ground. Anyone knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: someone enlighten me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: someone enlighten me
However, my question is concerning that, "Could you stop a copy from using your service because you don't like them (or their clients)?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: someone enlighten me
Anywho, I do hope craigslist wins against the spamming company though not because of the DMCA.
I think this shows how the DMCA is a joke and how its purpose was meant to give frivolous pretexts for people to sue and make lawyers rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CL has the right to deny service.
Further, Red trumpet is created with only one purpose, to spam the living crap out of CL and to attempt to bypass basic techniques used to avoid spamming on the site. Are they really a 230 service provider, or are they encouraging and profiting from spamming?
230 protections don't provide coverage for being idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OK...and this is relevent how? The question is not whether CL has the right to kick someone off their site for spamming. It's whether they can corrupt the intent of the DMCA and trademark laws to stop a company from selling a tool that can be used by users of CL to distribute spam.
230 protections don't provide coverage for being idiots.
Sometimes, as with free speech, you have to put up with idiots because upholding the overall principle is more important. If you believe that you can't hold a third-party responsible for someone else's behavior, even if they have a more than tangential involvement with that someone, then you have to realize that this will mean that sometimes safe harbors will apply to things you don't like.
For example, if you agree that it's wrong to hold an ISP responsible for its users making copyrighted material available, then you also have to agree that it's wrong to hold Red Trumpet responsible for selling software that its users use to spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nope, I wouldn't agree. An ISP is not actively promoting file sharing, they are not making it easier, they are not providing a software tool to do it. They are only providing a connection, no assistance.
Craigsup was "assistance to spam". It's a very different deal and something that does not merit 230 protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, lot's of misconceptions in the comments today
Nope, Red Trumpet is not spamming Craigslist, users of Red Trumpet's software are. And no, they couldn't just block all users of Red Trumpet software because there are plenty of legitimate uses of the software that are not Spam.
It's spelled "stalking". "Stocking" is what I used to do when I worked at a grocery store. And no, there is no stalking going on here.
While Craigslist does have the right to deny service to anyone, banning Red Trumpet would do nothing because Red Trumpet is not actually spamming Craigslist, users of it's software are. They are simply providers of software that other people use to spam Craigslist. And as mentioned, there are legitimate uses of the software. It similar to a gun manufacturer: While a lot of guns are used in crimes, the gun manufacturer is not responsible for those crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow, lot's of misconceptions in the comments today
They shouldn't block the Red Trumpet software, but the question was a little more general than that. Could they? If they wanted to, they could, but it would turn into a cat and mouse game like DRM.
The lawsuit isn't the way to fight this and nether is blocking the software. I'm not seeing a third option here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow, lot's of misconceptions in the comments today
[snip]
While Craigslist does have the right to deny service to anyone, banning Red Trumpet would do nothing because Red Trumpet is not actually spamming Craigslist, users of it's software are.
It's spelled "its". "It's" is a contraction.
"Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow, lot's of misconceptions in the comments today
What a waste of a post you freaking moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow, lot's of misconceptions in the comments today
*sarcasm off, serious discussion on*
Hold on here. Please clarify.
So if I create a service on Internet I have to let everyone use it? For example, if I start a server giving people free email accounts, I have no right to say I am only limiting certain people to get the free account, but I have to give everyone who asked an account? Or let say I have a bit torrent tracker, and I want to forbid any bit torrent client that just leechs and doesn't upload. I can't say that program x and all program x users are denied. I have to denied each users one by one because some other trackers might accept program x?
I am not being sarcastic or anything. I just want to be certain if this is true because it kind of defies common sense...
okay, back to the program...
*sarcasm on*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow, lot's of misconceptions in the comments today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow, lot's of misconceptions in the comments today
Not intentionally trying to misunderstand, let's work it out here.
My understanding of the quote I used above is this:
1) CL cannot block users of red trumpet
2) red trumpet software is "legal" and has a right to exist because it has legitimate use.
This is a bit confusing because #1 shouldn't have anything to do with #2. The sentence structure you are using made it sound like #1 is valid because #2 is true.
#1 "they couldn't just block all users of Red Trumpet software"
BECAUSE
#2 "there are plenty of legitimate uses of the software that are not Spam."
That's why I ask for clarification. Now from your reply, I can confirm that you don't agree with #1, because you said "they have the right to block anyone for any reason or even no reason at all". Good, I agree with you. Good thing we sort it out. Now the new item you introduced is
#3 "trying to block all users of a specific software would just create a cat and mouse game and would not accomplish anything".
first of all, this has nothing to do with #1 and #2, so we have to deal it seperately.
I agree with you partially on #3, barring the "not accomplish anything" part. There is no reason that they shouldn't do this as first step. Let's apply the same sentence to, let say, heroin dealer.
-trying to stop all heroin dealers would just create a cat and mouse game and would not accomplish anything-
I think most people would disagree with that.
If red trumpet is a problem for CL. They should ban all users of red trumpet. Sites with no problem with red trumpet should continue to let RT users go on. We are not denying the existence or usefulness of RT, just that it's not welcome at CL, that's all. There is nothing wrong with that.
Now, if CL just ban RT users, there is no need to go to court on shaking legal grounds. RT continue to have their business, just not going to be able to use on CL and there is nothing wrong with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow, lot's of misconceptions in the comments today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow, lot's of misconceptions in the comments today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, have an option so that if, for some reason, there is a mistake, one can appeal the banhammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law and Common Sense - Mutually Exclusive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law and Common Sense - Mutually Exclusive?
Nope. They have no chance. Providing the means does not make them liable. That would be like the truck manufacturer being held responsible for the dumping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Law and Common Sense - Mutually Exclusive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Law and Common Sense - Mutually Exclusive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Left hand, right hand
Is it just me or are there too many examples of the legal department going off and doing things which the regular executives should know is obviously bad for the company as a whole? Is "How to Hypnotize your CEO" a standard class in law school?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to me it's easier for CL to go after spammers, divert attention from their far more issues.
Most of these dumb lawsuits are, right, dumb.
Eventually they will bite CL in the ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Besides, if we are arguing here that it's the users at fault, CL is not to be blamed for what's going on there. They have obligations to police to certain extend but they should not be hold responsible for everything happening on the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
craigslist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you really that dumb?
Exactly. "It's" is a contraction of "It is". My sentence "It's spelled "stalking"." can also be read "It is spelled "stalking"." the apostrophe was correct.
You also apparently don't (also correct apostrophe use) know how to identify irony. Irony is: "The use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning". But that's okay, most people can't properly identify irony anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you really that dumb?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you really that dumb?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Are you really that dumb?
Here's an example of irony. Someone who points out another who used the incorrect word is a post themselves using an incorrect word in their post.
Also...
It's spelled "can't". "Cant" is an "affected singsong or whining speech".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you really that dumb?
WRONG. That is not irony at all. Look it up and you might learn something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
piratebay was providing services too
People can use legal jardon all they want, in the end, that's why we have a jury system so people can use common sense to determine a case. If a service is intended to provide ways to by-pass security, then craigslist has some ground for argument.
On a side note, related to the ad-skipping service, what if those site now change their ad page to say "please login with "FREEPASS" to see the next page? Then if the ad-skipping program automatically enter the password for the user to skip to next page, would that consider as by passing security? With capchas, they clearly "display" the pass code needed to continue, so what's the difference?
Clearly, I don't know which side I'm on... but I'm enjoying the conversation here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Discovery process.
The legal system is a tool, some people just know how to add a fulcrum to gain more leverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can we do classifieds without Spam ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can we do classifieds without Spam ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
craigshat.com
The hell with the spammers, this can be overcome with technology. I can think of a million different ways to limit their spam without jeopardizing the experience of the user base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
craigslist's problem is with people entering into ToS fraudulently with the specific intent of lifting information from the site and using it in a way that harms craigslist. That is exactly the kind of fraud which Congress sought to prohibit with the CFAA. Not the inadvertent ToS violation, and not cases where the person developed the intent to violate ToS sometime after gaining consent to entry.
If you read the EFF amicus brief in the Drew case (I suspect the author of the above article has not), the EFF itself stated that the CFAA was intended to prevent trespass and theft. Here, Red Trumpet's actions fall within the common law definition of trespass, being that they had no intention of honoring the ToS when they gained craigslist's authorization. In other words, they obtained consent to enter via fraud, which is-- and always has been-- common law trespass.
Note that this interpretation of the CFAA would not have affected the outcome in the Drew case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
craigslist's lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]