The meaning of the phrase “You also expressly grant and assign to [Craigslist] all rights” was the subject of some debate at the hearing on these motions, but the “all rights” language relates specifically to enforcement rights–not rights to the content of the posts. The language assigning rights to the content did not use the phrase “all rights,” and did not specify that the rights granted were “exclusive.” Craigslist provides no authority for the proposition that an ambiguous grant of rights is presumptively exclusive, and the Court declines to read that term into the terms that Craigslist itself drafted

Craigslist has alleged that its “classified ad service is organized first by geographic area, and then by category of product or service,” with these categories organized in “a list designed and presented by craigslist.”... Construing the relevant allegations in Craigslist’s favor at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court concludes that Craigslist, in “deciding which categories to include and under what name,” ... “display[ed] some minimal level of creativity,”

Clicking “Continue” confirms that craigslist is the exclusive licensee of this content, with the exclusive right to enforce copyrights against anyone copying, republishing, distributing or preparing derivative works without its consent.

So, if you posted a craigslist ad while this provision was live, you're out of luck. craigslist's ownership claims over user posts could potentially mean that the affected users can’t republish their ads on multiple services without risking a claim of infringement. And while not every craigslist post is going to go viral and have real value outside the original context (like the “Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ” car ad), users still need the right to post and repost their material in a variety of venues. Moreover, the exclusive license provision calls into question craigslist’s compatibility with common licensing schemes, like the Creative Commons ShareAlike license or the GNU Free Documentation License for the time that provision was valid. And, worse still: craigslist’s actions, and the court's ruling, only increases the chance that other websites will start demanding ownership of the content you post there.

The Court need not decide whether violating “restrictions on access to information” contained in a website’s terms of use can ever support liability under the CFAA, because Craigslist’s TOU contain only “use” restrictions, not true “access” restrictions as the term is used in Nosal. Although the TOU include a section titled “Unauthorized Access and Activities,” parts of which are framed in terms of “access,” these restrictions depend entirely on the accessor’s purpose. TOU at 6-7 (prohibiting, e.g., “access to or use of craigslist to design, develop, test, . . . or otherwise make available any program” that interacts with Craigslist).

Aside from the TOU, however, Craigslist specifically denied authorization to use the website “for any purposes” in its cease and desist letters, Kao Decl. Ex. A, and also used technological measures to block access from IP addresses associated with 3Taps, which Craigslist alleges that 3Taps bypassed by using different IP addresses and proxy servers to conceal its identity. Assuming that the CFAA encompasses information generally available to the public such as Craigslist’s website, Defendants’ continued use of Craigslist after the clear statements regarding authorization in the cease and desist letters and the technological measures to block them constitutes unauthorized access under the statute.

Cease and Desist Letters Should Not Make Access to a Website Criminal

The CFAA is both a civil and a criminal statute. This is a civil case, but has criminal ramifications. While the court looked at the earlier Facebook v. Power Ventures case, it misread a key holding. There, the court recognized that imposing criminal liability based on the “receipt of a cease and desist letter would create a constitutionally untenable situation.” This would put too much power in the hands of private parties to decide what a crime would be.

Changing IP Addresses Is Not Hacking

The court’s ruling on IP address blocking is dangerous because it could criminalize innocent behavior.

[....] There is nothing inherently improper, never mind unlawful, about switching IP addresses and thereby avoiding IP address blocking. Moreover, when a website is available without restriction to the public, a private party should not be able turn access into a crime to back up owner preferences or terms of service with the weight of criminal authority.

You also expressly grant and assign to CL all rights and causes of action to prohibit and enforce against any unauthorized copying, performance, display, distribution, use or exploitation of, or creation of derivative works from, any content that you post (including but not limited to any unauthorized downloading, extraction, harvesting, collection or aggregation of content that you post).