Zillow's second letter about McMansion Hell is still wrong

Re:Zillow's second letter about McMansion Hell is still wrong by paulgb on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @04:48PM (#14658223)

Yes, I think the lawyer here is essentially admitting they don't have a copyright case directly. A C&D is basically just asking someone to stop doing something, so it makes sense that they would throw in every theory that sounds plausible. I don't blame them for this, it's not the C&D sender's job to be the recipient's lawyer.

Only the state can enforce the criminal parts of the CFAA, but there are civil parts as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zillow's second letter about McMansion Hell is still wrong by tareqak on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @05:17PM (#14658521)

Does that make sense though? Why would the lawyer send a C&D that's so broad if the specific issue was a violation of Terms of Service. That would be similar to an engineer or technician saying that the Internet is broken when in fact it is just a cable modem and/or router that is at fault.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zillow's second letter about McMansion Hell is still wrong by paulgb on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @05:29PM (#14658647)

I assume they think it's better to be thorough. A C&D isn't a lawsuit, it's a letter to persuade someone to change their behavior. It doesn't hurt to mention all the reasons you think they should stop even if some are a little dubious.

[ Parent | on HN ]