ebay v. craigslist: Newmark and Buckmaster asked ebay to keep the "essentially extorsion" secret

EVEN MORE: twitter

craigscriticism

@agaricus Gary, I hope you are at least casually following the ebay v. craigslist lawsuit -- it's just priceless!:) ~Delia about 1 hour ago from web in reply to agaricus
MORE: Twitter

(ebay v. craigslist) links to Craig Newmark assuring craigslisters ebay only got 25% and none of his equity was sold (http://bit.ly/6KSdcA) 12 minutes ago from web

craigscriticism

@craigoodle *lots* of people should be finding the info about craigslist finally disclosed to the public VERY interesting to say the least:) less than 20 seconds ago from web in reply to craigoodle
...
"Price said Newmark and Buckmaster asked that their payment be kept quiet to prevent the altruistic public image of the company from being tarnished. He said he viewed the payment as "essentially extortion." (3rd paragraph)

looks like my hunch at the time was correct

these 2 link are priceless!

(http://sfbay.craigslist.org/forums/?ID=18000876)
#1 Craig assuring craigslisters ebay only had 25%
(http://sfbay.craigslist.org/forums/?ID=18001900)
#2 Craig denying that *any* of his equity was sold

more truth comes out: craigslist representative had told ebay that Newmark and Buckmaster "may have been looking for a way to cash out" -- say *what?*

MORE: twitter: ebay v. craigslist: truth comes out: Newmark and Buckmaster "may have been looking for a way to cash out"-- say *what?* http://bit.ly/5c0PG0 3 minutes ago from web
...
"EBay Deputy General Counsel Brian Levey, who helped handle eBay's purchase of a 28% stake in Craigslist in 2004, said in Delaware Chancery Court Tuesday that a representative for Craigslist shareholders mentioned that the company may be interested in finding equity financing, and that the two remaining shareholders, Craig Newmark and Jim Buckmaster may have been looking for a way to "cash out." (2nd paragraph)

Delia

craigslist: the ebay deal -- finally the truth gets out! (it only took a monster lawsuit)

MORE:

MORE: twitter: # craigslist: the ebay 16 million deal! valleywag had the right figure Jim Buckmaster finally talks -- 'cause he *has to* http://bit.ly/5FZQL1 4 minutes ago from web

and to think that Valleywag got the number right! 16 million...

"Buckmaster said eBay paid $16 million, which included the rights-of-first-refusal over any sale of Buckmaster's and Newmark's shares and veto rights over mergers and acquisitions."
(2nd part of 2nd paragraph from bottom)

Craig got a house probably worth in the millions that summer... aka "the shack"! *lol*

Delia

P.S. more recent post by Valleywag D.

is Michael Arrington right? Did Craig Newmark advise Wikipedia to have fund raising ads?

EVEN MORE:

thanks, Seth!

we've talked about this in the past and I still believe he could have *sold it* before turning non-profit and there would have probably been no Wikipedia today.

I continue to believe he deserves respect for this, for NOT doing what Craig did, making it a *for profit* and keeping people laboring and in the dark as to what's really going on.

Sure, he's not a "purist" (e.g. I suppose he could have donated all his honoraria to Wikipedia, although it did take a lot of his private time to get to the point where he would be offered anything of the kind) but, as far as I'm concerned, there is really no comparison between what he did and what Craig did.

Delia

P.S. and no! I don't believe Wikipedia should have any ads on it and that banner ad *is* an ad blocked by ad-blocking software

thanks for this link --> very on point! D>

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-March/001605.html

MORE:

*You* can do better than that, Jimmy... You still have my respect for having made and kept Wikipedia a non-profit, (a huge contrast with craigslist) but you are wrong on this one... and if this was indeed Craig's advice that you/Wikipedia took, I'd do without such adviser... ~Delia

P.S. keep it open and honest (it's not worth messing it up after you did the right thing for such a long time) D.


Michael,

I think you are right on this one: it *is* an ad! (a fund raising ad for Wikipedia). Even more obvious than what were, in my opinion, ads for Skype on craigslist -- ostensibly because Craig Newmark *just liked* Skype...-- but I definitely wondered if craigslist was getting paid by Skype for having those links on the site (at the time, when the Skype links were introduced, craigslist was claiming to derive benefits *mostly* from paid ads but has never clarified what other sources of revenue have been). Even if craigslist wasn't getting paid for it, those links were still, in effect, a heck of a lot of ads for Skype!

~Delia

craigslist & CDA immunity: isn't craigslist co-creator of those ads given that it now screens them?

EVEN MORE: TWITTER: craigslist & DMA immunity: isn't craigslist co-author of those ads given that it now screens them? ( http://bit.ly/4xwyXl ) any idea? ~Delia half a minute ago from web

MORE:

sorry about the delay... just posted it! D.


----- Original message -----
Sent: 2009/11/15 19:24:00
Subject: Re: Re: RE: digital media blog

You are welcome to post our exchange. I will comment on the issues you raise in my blog shortly


From: dperiod
To: Johnson, David D.
Sent: Sun Nov 15 16:11:05 2009
Subject: Re: RE: digital media blog


the fact that as a result of mounting pressure from AGs, craigslist decided not only to change the name of the category from "erotic" to "adult" but also to *screen the ads prior to publication* (manual review): here is the info in the Boston Globe, for instance:

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2009/05/14/craigslist_drops_erotic_services_ads/

and here is the post on my blog talking about it:

http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/11/craigslist-cda-immunity-isnt-craigslist.html

Thanks!

Delia

P.S. is it ok to post our email exchanges on my blog? (it would all go in the body of the entry so anybody reading my blog will see your comments -- has worked well in the past, especially if the views differ) D.


----- Original message -----
Sent: 2009/11/15 12:35:04
Subject: Re: RE: digital media blog

Delia: What major change are you referring to? Regards, David Johnson


From: dperiod [mailto:dperiod@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 12:50 AM
To: Johnson, David D.
Subject: digital media blog



Hello!

I found your post re: Dart v. Craigslist helpful but believe it fails to take into consideration a major change in craigslist's involvement in the process of creating those ads. I thought you might want to comment.

Delia

re:
http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/10/dart_v_craigslist_district_cou.html

It certainly appears to be the case! by screening the ads, craigslist now provides *direct assistance* to the users with finalizing the content of those ads prior to publication... (1st tip on how to "stay on the good side of the CDA and criminal law")

Delia

PS. I'll see if David Johnson would like to comment on this. D.

(craigslist prostitution) why did Dart's suit fail are similar suits doomed?

MORE:

Twitter http://bit.ly/3fYFn2 (craigslist prostitution) why did Dart's suit fail and are similar suits doomed? let me know what you think! ~Delialess than 20 seconds ago from web

charging for adult/erotic ads -- the details

UPDATE: after a very long confusion as to what was Jim really up to, he has removed my post (the comment number is still on the bottom and it does link to the entry); what a wimp... (but what's new?) D.

MORE:

STILL MORE well... Jim is either asleep or purposely leaving my comment in "moderation" -- will have to move on; I think what's important to understand here is that we just don't know the actual facts; craigslist could easily clarify them but apparently just doesn't want to...

EVEN MORE: my comment on the craigslist blog is still "awaiting moderation"(that's the message I get when I access it): a bit confused since 3 more comments have been posted after mine, so did Jim read my comment or not yet? will give him the benefit of the doubt, hopefully it's going to get clarified soon... D.

MORE: Twitter: craigslist charging for adult/erotic ads -- the details! if anybody *knows* what's going on, please help! ~Delia (http://bit.ly/1iQnT1)2 minutes ago from web
...
ok, lets ask this as nicely as possible and see if Jim clarifies it...

Jim, (http://blog.craigslist.org/2009/10/dart-dismissed/#comment-127993)

Could you please clarify something for me?

When did craigslist *start* charging for "erotic/adult ads" (talks of it hit the news in November 2008 but when was the actual starting date? -- although I have not been able to find the exact date anywhere, there seemed to be a strong inference that it was at some point *after* the beginning of 2009; yet the info in the judgment appears to contradict this); also, in what locations does craigslist currently charge for "adult ads" and/or "erotic ads" and why is there a difference between the fees charged -- $5 versus $10? (surprising info given in the judgment) and did the list of such locations increase since the initial charging? (it would appear so)

thanks!

Delia