Ebay had a contractual obligation to not compete directly with Craigslist. Ebay then purchases an overseas company and launches it in the US in direct competition with Craigslist. Craigslist follows the terms of the contract, dilutes Ebay's shares and freezes them out. Sure, we don't have all the details, but it's pretty hard to see how Ebay could come out looking like the good guy in all this.
I think the key here is profit. If a news organization actually had some real duty to report the news, as opposed to being a profit driven machine, then I might argue for fair use here. However, the usage in this case can be measured as a tangible profit for the news agency and as such, there should be damages awarded for Ms. Dupre.
Then leave if you hate techdirt so much! Wait, you never had permission to be accessing a private server on a private network in the first place!!! BUSTED! You just committed the same crime as the wardriver in question.
Unfortunately you are wrong. This did already happen a few years ago at Staples. They sent a coupon to their best customers for $50 off $50. Of course, being the idiots that they are, this coupon worked for anyone placing an order. A good number of people had their orders shipped with this coupon. Staples sent out a notice saying return the items or we will charge your CC the full price. Some people folded and returned the items, while others stood firm. Most actually won their CC disputes, with a handful being denied.
At the end of the day what Staples did, and now what Amazon are doing, is consumer fraud. Once the transaction has taken place and the item has been shipped the sale is considered final. Amazon can claim legal precedent, but only in the court of law. Any charges to your CC would be unauthorized because you have not specifically given consent. So, while there may be laws protecting Amazon from this kind of loss, they don't get to play judge, jury and executioner here. After all, that is why we have a legal system, to resolve these types of disputes.
Yeah this has been a problem for a while now, ever since Cloudmark was back in original beta. I tested it out and my legitimate mailing lists would be flagged as SPAM. No matter how many times I told them it wasn't SPAM, it would still flag them. Don't know why it has taken them so long to realize that in fact, not everyone can agree on what is and what is not SPAM.
On the post: Is There Any Good Reason Why Apple Should Pull The $1000 iPhone App?
Don't make me laugh
On the post: Details Come Out On eBay/Craigslist Fight
Seems pretty clear cut to me...
On the post: Is Printing Call Girl Photos Fair Use?
Infringement... yes
On the post: Two People Arrested In England For WiFi Theft
Re:
On the post: Yes, Those Free DVDs On Amazon Were Too Good To Be True
Re: Some of you people need to get a life...
At the end of the day what Staples did, and now what Amazon are doing, is consumer fraud. Once the transaction has taken place and the item has been shipped the sale is considered final. Amazon can claim legal precedent, but only in the court of law. Any charges to your CC would be unauthorized because you have not specifically given consent. So, while there may be laws protecting Amazon from this kind of loss, they don't get to play judge, jury and executioner here. After all, that is why we have a legal system, to resolve these types of disputes.
On the post: People Know The Difference Between Spam And A Legitimate Newsletter
No Subject Given
Don't know why it has taken them so long to realize that in fact, not everyone can agree on what is and what is not SPAM.
Next >>