Posted by Mack McCoy at 5/12/08 11:23 a.m.

The New York Times did not note whether any New York MLSes or brokerages were feeding their listings ...

Posted by Mack McCoy at 5/12/08 5:30 p.m.

There's also an interesting pre-supposition that MLS data, like recorded music and other items, somehow "wants" to be free.

MLS data exists - and this may surprise the public - to serve the member brokerages. If I want to post MLS data on my website, even though I'm a subscriber, I have to apply for permission to do so. It doesn't automatically "belong" to me simply because I pay for access.

Those who argue on how the public is best served by providing MLS data usually will themselves be better served should their position prevail.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/13/08 8:40 a.m.

I do not think any real estate company should offer their listing information for free, nor without quite a bit of thought as to who might read the information. As a seller, I would want to be certain none of my personal information is put on sites not controlled by my MLS.

I especially dislike the sites that have comments from public and agents. Absolutely, I will not have my home subjected to that kind of process.

The internet is a tool, useful sometimes, but getting far too much data to continue to work viably.

Posted by johnnyrock70 at 5/13/08 11:01 a.m.

...but you WOULD be OK with personal info being disclosed by "your" MLS? Listen, when you are a real estate agent trying to spin a story, at least try to be smart about it. This just looks desperate...oh wait...never mind.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/14/08 9:21 a.m.

As a buyer, I view the combined data as a welcome change. I want to have a comprehensive view of the properties on the market instead of a restricted subset of the available properties.