Slashdot Mirror


First Google Maps Hack Takedown

An anonymous reader writes "Despite "users accelerating innovation" with Google Maps the 'hacks' are not immune from Google's legal team, who have taken down "Google Wallpapers for violating the terms of agreement. From a quick skim through the terms it would seem that most sites using the Google Maps data are in violation. Are Chicago Crime and Google Sightseeing next to go?" It may be a shame to shut down Google Maps offshoots, but that has to be the nicest take-down note I've ever seen; it's polite, friendly and reasonable. Update: 06/08 21:22 GMT by T : Below, a few more of the current uses for Google Maps. An anonymous reader submits "The AP is running a story about the multiple uses for Google Maps. Among the uses, Tracking sexual predators in Florida, Guiding travelers to the cheapest gas nationwide, Pinpointing $1,500 studio apartments for rent in Manhattan, and Finding crime in Chicago. It'll be interesting to see if Google allows these sites to remain online or not."

325 comments

  1. Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by Greg+Wright · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Funny, you can still get to the python script that generates the wallpapers from the cached pages of http://gmerge.2ni.net/ on Google itself:

    http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:lNdeCgLHUdwJ:le vinux.org/~2ni/gmerge/+google+maps+wallpaper&hl=en

    Get it while its still there! :)

    --
    --greg Vulcan quiescent... Q: What machine shutdown with this message?
    1. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by suwain_2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about a cache of their cache just to be paranoid?

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    2. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by abb3w · · Score: 1
      You'd think that the legal department would have sent themselves a copy of the takedown notice...

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    3. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And does the app they had for download still work? That'd be funny...

      I wonder if this application of google maps just had too many data requests on maps.google.com or something like that...

    4. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by Mercano · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      #include <signature.h>
    5. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't seem to get the script to work. I keep getting error like: ./googlemapsstitcher.py:145: DeprecationWarning: integer argument expected, got float
      for yi in range(0, tileHeight): ./googlemapsstitcher.py:146: DeprecationWarning: integer argument expected, got float
      for xi in range(0, tileWidth):
      unsubscriptable object

      unsubscriptable object

      unsubscriptable object

      unsubscriptable object

      unsubscriptable object

      unsubscriptable object

      unsubscriptable object

      unsubscriptable object

      unsubscriptable object

      unsubscriptable object

      unsubscriptable object

      unsubscriptable object

      unsubscriptable object

      Anyone got a sample URL that does work?

    6. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      errr... sorry, doesn't that error message make it blindingly obvious?

      Perhaps I have spent too long developing my debugging skills with the many hours spent fixing retarded errors on VBA.

    7. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by nazgul000 · · Score: 1

      Here is Google's cache of the actual Python script used to generate the wallpapers:

      http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:fWrAVd4XgzUJ:g merge.2ni.net/gmerge.py+gmerge.py&hl=en&client=fir efox-a

      And here is a coralized version:

      http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:fWrAVd4XgzUJ:g merge.2ni.net/gmerge.py.nyud.net

      For informational use only :)

    8. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by kngthdn · · Score: 1

      Or even better, the actual gMerge executable for Windows, with a nice interface.

      I can't believe they left this online...someone ought to post a mirror quick.

      http://images.levinux.org/storage/gMerge-win32.zip

    9. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The legal department would have sent the legal department a copy of the takedown notice? Huh? In English, please...

    10. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just downloaded the executable last night, and it worked wonderfully. Today, no dice. Permission errors. Oh well, I got what I wanted.

      Spice

    11. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody have a mirror of that win32 executable?

    12. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by kyhwana · · Score: 1

      That page is 404? Is there a azureus magnet/.torrent of it anywhere?

      --
      My email addy? should be easy enough.
    13. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by kngthdn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Okay, here's a mirror, but it only has 2000MB of bandwidth. It could also get taken down, but I doubt it, considering that the file is GPL'd.

      http://mars.walagata.com/w/gmerge/gMerge-win32.zip

    14. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't able to get the exe to work - it opens with a memory acces violation, then whenever i enter a query, it acts as if it generated the file, but nothing happens

      anyone else seeing this? any ideas?

    15. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by kugeln · · Score: 1

      Looks as if it had a built-in self-destruct. Ever since an hour or so when the news was posted, it's been crashing. I know that it used to hit some website to get the 'Google Sightseeing' links. Now it just crashes...strange.

    16. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by kngthdn · · Score: 1

      Yes, the memory error doesn't seem to matter. Just click okay and ignore it. And for some reason, you need to set the zoom to be higher than zero. Don't ask me why, but that seems to be the problem.

      It does work, I tried it.

    17. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    18. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by BlueTooth · · Score: 1

      -- Why can't we moderate posts "incoherent"?

      Yours, for instance.

      --
      SPAM
    19. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To kill the (piddling amount of) funny:

      Lawyers send takedown notices to people hosting infringing material; for a corporate person, usually directed to the legal department.
      Google was hosting a cache of the offending files.
      Google has, in the past, receieved takedown notices for files they have cached or hosted.
      Lawyers normally keep a file copy of anything they send out; IE, send a copy to their own office.
      Thus, Google's legal department recieved a copy of their own takedown notice, and didn't take down the material. Will they sue themselves?

      Only funny if you like your diet high in irony.

    20. Re:Getting Google Takedowns with Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only is it blaringly obvious, its the only thing wrong, and it is still working today (10 days later)

      The only thing that would have been more obvious would have been to actually say "file-not-found"...

  2. Nicest Shut down? by fembots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if RIAA sent you a bouquet of flowers with a cute, humorous, handwritten greeting card personally signed by the PR manager informing your court appearance date, it wouldn't be so bad?

    I don't think there is anything wrong for a listed company to protect its interest, control its IPs and maximize its profit, but the fanboy twist is totally unnecessary.

    1. Re:Nicest Shut down? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:Nicest Shut down? by martok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Though this is true to a point, there is something to be said about sending a notice to the site operator directly. Afaik, the *aa folks tend to harass upstream providers and do not contact site operators directly. Though, I am sure google would have done likewise if a favourable response was not fourthcoming.

    3. Re:Nicest Shut down? by bagel2ooo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't notice anything about google requesting a court appearance. If RIAA did what you stated above and came across in a manner that made you feel they were doing this for the greater interests of their other customers (Artists and Music License Purchasers) then it would be a whole different story. If they sent a bouquet of flowers ... and all, along with a simple request to have it taken down for the good of the upstart artist and other music patrons, I'm sure your take on it would be far different.

      --
      ( o ) one could say I'm rather baked
    4. Re:Nicest Shut down? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, Google was polite they explained themselves, did not start with "we'll sue your @$$"...

      --
    5. Re:Nicest Shut down? by soft_guy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think a C&D letter written in L337 speak would be hillarious.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    6. Re:Nicest Shut down? by urmensch · · Score: 1

      What if a favourable response was thirdcoming?

      Sorry!

    7. Re:Nicest Shut down? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I don't think there is anything wrong for a listed company to protect its interest, control its IPs and maximize its profit..."

      It's a pity Blizzard wasn't given that consideration.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:Nicest Shut down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TEH GOGLE MAPS TEM R3CENTLY NOTIECD UR GOGL3 MAPS TIEL STITCHAR

      2 SE DEV3LOP3RS INTER3ST3D IN OUR PRODUCTS AND WA COMEND U ON TH3 SERVIEC1!!!! LOL

      TAHT SADE WE WUD APRECIAET IT IF U VOLUNTARILY UR SERVIEC AND S2P USNG GOGL3 MAPS ON UR WEB SIET!11!!11 OMG WTF LOL

      TEH SERVIEC VIOLAETS TEH MAPS TERMS OF SERVIEC AVALEABL3 AT HTP/WWGOGLECOM/HALP/TERMS_LOCALHTML11!! LOL AND JEOPARDIEZS OUR ABILITY 2 MAEK GOGLA MAPS AVALEABLA 2 TEH PUBLIC B/C IT ENCOURAEGS NON-PERSONAL USA OF GOGLA MAPS IF1111! OMG WTF LOL

      U HAEV ANY QUESTIONS OR CONC3RNS OR IF WA HAEV CONTACTED THA WRONG PEOPLA PLZ FEL FRE 2 CONTACT ME DIERCTLY!!11 OMG LOL OTH3RWIES MUELTC PLZ LET US KNOW AS SON AS POSIBLE WHAN TEH SERVIEC HAS

      THX!!!1! WTF LOL
      TAYLOR PRODUCT MANAEGR GOGLA MAPS!!111LOL

    9. Re:Nicest Shut down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, thing is - you know that bouquet of flowers and the spedial RIAA hallmark greeting will be charged back to you as "costs incurred".

    10. Re:Nicest Shut down? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't think there is anything wrong for a listed company to protect its interest, control its IPs and maximize its profit
      Google's demeanor aside, this is the real question.

      Google is in somewhat of a special position, because virtually 100% of their content comes from other websites! While issuing takedown notices, Google must remember it's only a matter of time until somebody challenges the google cache, or even of including textual context on the search results page.

      For now, I'm sure google is happy to honor any requests from people who don't want to be in their results, and such requests are rare. But what we must avoid is a cultural shift on the Internet, where companies feel it's irresponsible to "give away" anything besides advertising. I *can* imagine images.google.com becoming useless from opt-outs, and I can imagine companies trying to control who can link into their websites. It's the culture of sharing I worry about more than the legalities.

      It would be nice if google would allow use of the maps so long as there were an accompanying link and logo, or something.

    11. Re:Nicest Shut down? by complete+loony · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On a related note, the gmail invite spooler has also been taken down recently.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    12. Re:Nicest Shut down? by akac · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is for their Maps service which is 99% their content. They own the map data...

    13. Re:Nicest Shut down? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      So if RIAA sent you a bouquet of flowers with a cute, humorous, handwritten greeting card personally signed by the PR manager informing your court appearance date, it wouldn't be so bad?

      No, but if a product manager at the RIAA (and not a lawyer or court), tried sending you a polite message explaining why it was wrong to files of copyrighted works into public shares and asked you to stop before they tried the legal route, THEN it wouldn't be so bad.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    14. Re:Nicest Shut down? by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      They own the map data...

      That true? I got the idea the photographic imagery (read satellite photos) is under a different license considering it falls under a different section of their TOS and includes words like "dissassemble", "decompile" and "reverse engineer" I just assumed they didn't have full rights to the stuff to pass on fully even if they wanted to. (decompile and reverse engineer seem really out of place when it comes to photographs...)

    15. Re:Nicest Shut down? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Did they get the permission of all the people in the photos? Because correct me if I'm wrong, but if they didn't, they may own the photos, but they're still not legally allowed to distribute them. Doesn't take long after the incorporation to see the legal bullying come out, does it?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    16. Re:Nicest Shut down? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Actually, this is for their Maps service which is 99% their content. They own the map data.
      And my point is that other people, not google, own the data and pages which google spiders crawl and index, comprising their core business.

      What people do with google's map images may be quite similar to what google does to others' images and web content.

    17. Re:Nicest Shut down? by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      If the letter said to appear in court for an ass reaming, no.

      If the letter said "Please stop downloading music", I'd consider stopping.

      Then the next time I bought some blank CDs, didn't use them for music, but still payed the CD levy, I'd go back to downloading.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    18. Re:Nicest Shut down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, who wants an invite?

    19. Re:Nicest Shut down? by Bob+MacSlack · · Score: 1

      The difference between google's page index and the maps hacks is that the hacks are essentially leeching the content out of the original site whereas google's index is pointing to it. At some point google will put ads up (since that's their revenue stream) and people using the system from outside their pages aren't going to be hitting the ads to make google money.

      As far as image search and google cache, I'll let the lawyers hash it out.

      And damn, that was a nice cease and desist. I've always maintained that we need a law that says "thou shalt send a nice letter asking politely for compliance or no judgement for thee!"

    20. Re:Nicest Shut down? by baquiano · · Score: 1

      Like this one?

      --
      You're bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything. --Donald Knuth
    21. Re:Nicest Shut down? by Vraeden · · Score: 1

      I think it does make a difference. When they treat you as a human being who has simply made an error in judgement rather than a conniving, remorseless thief, it goes a long way towards creating an eventual understanding and/or compromise.

  3. If you must be evil... by straponego · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...at least be nice about it?

    1. Re:If you must be evil... by Morel · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think Winston Churchill said it best:

      "If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it."

      Cheers,

      Morel

    2. Re:If you must be evil... by zerbot · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's evil. I know a lot of people who hold IP, and if they could, they wouldn't mind most of the infringing uses. Unfortunately, our legal system says that if you don't defend your IP, then you lose it, and losing it usually means that some rapacious evildoer manages to find a way to rook you out of what should be yours. In some cases, the IP holders just ask that you write and ask permission, that's all, then nobody needs to get into take down notices.

      But being polite goes a long way in my book. Nothing says a take down notice can't be nice and polite.

    3. Re:If you must be evil... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      They worded it extremely carefully.
      I quote:
      and jeopardises our
      ability to make Google Maps available to the public because it
      encourages non-personal use of Google Maps.


      That reads to me that they may tolerate sites using the maps for a private audience (siteseeing etc), and might consider it a personal use, especially if it merely takes the steering wheel of the existing application.

      Extracting the data and producing a derivative (tiled single image) would appear to go beyond tweaking the existing controls however.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:If you must be evil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Unfortunately, our legal system says that if you don't defend your IP, then you lose it,

      This applies solely to trademarks, not to any other form of IP.

    5. Re:If you must be evil... by Mik3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lets remember that Google Maps licenses its data from Navtech and Tele Atlas. The cost of a license to make maps is probably much less expensive than a license allowing third parties to distribute as well.

    6. Re:If you must be evil... by JohnPM · · Score: 1

      Don't you watch the movies?! Being polite and feeling the need to explain always gives the good guys time to sneak up behind / escape / etc.

      Shoot first! Be polite later!

      --
      Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
    7. Re:If you must be evil... by alexo · · Score: 1


      > Unfortunately, our legal system says that if you don't defend your IP, then you lose it,
      > This applies solely to trademarks, not to any other form of IP.


      Not true.

      When I was on dial-up, I lost my IP each time I disconnected.

  4. Noooooooooo! by professorhojo · · Score: 2, Informative

    i hope my favorite mashup, google housing, that uses the craigslist rental pages won't get taken down!!

    http://www.housingmaps.com/

    1. Re:Noooooooooo! by alphakappa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think they will take down the craigslist-googlemaps mashup since they themselves praised it as a featured project on Google Code.

      There is a reason why this particular project got the takedown notice:
      1. The satellite/air imagery is probably not owned by Google - they must have licensed it from AirphotoUSA or whoever else is the supplier.
      2. The wallpaper site simply takes the images and stitches them together as a wallpaper - which means that are not simply incorporating a google product, but appropriating the images therein. Google's terms of use with their provider would necessisate the takedown.

      --
      "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
    2. Re:Noooooooooo! by xiando · · Score: 1

      housingmaps is also In Violation of the Google Map Service as stated on http://www.google.com/help/terms_local.html , quote: "The photographic imagery made available for display through Google maps is provided under a nonexclusive, non-transferable license for use only by you. You may not use the imagery in any commercial or business environment or for any commercial or business purposes for yourself or any third parties."

      Basically every site out there using any kind of images from the Google Map service is in violation and should shut down immediately.

      This is not like the **AA who blaitently sends out takedown notices almost randomly to people who are not in violation of any law or rule, Google has The Right to ask sites who are in violation to please close down. And they should, now the cat is out of the bag, such sites apperently bother Google and they may not be so nice about it to those who do not take the hint later.

    3. Re:Noooooooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RIAA/MPAA does not send letters to people who are not in violation. This would be quite illegal.

      The RIAA/MPAA actually looks for people in violation of their copyrights and takes appropriate action.

    4. Re:Noooooooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if http://www.floridasexualpredators.com/ will be the next to go also?

    5. Re:Noooooooooo! by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      'Fraid not. The process of sending out letters is so automated that people have gotten letters for hosting a Free Software application that merely happened to have a name similar to RIAA or MPAA intellectual property. Furthermore, I don't think this screw-up is "illegal", just embarassing.

    6. Re:Noooooooooo! by glitch23 · · Score: 1, Informative

      1. The satellite/air imagery is probably not owned by Google - they must have licensed it from AirphotoUSA or whoever else is the supplier.

      The map data Google uses is from NAVTEQ (Yahoo maps fame) and Tele Atlas. I recently was on a project that used Tele Atlas data and I can say that the maps are not cheap (but their tech support is very helpful and went out of their way to help us but that may have been due to the high priority of the gov't project we were working on). Approximately $100k was spent and we only had maps for North America. We also did not yet invest in any satellite images either which I'm sure costs a lot (maybe even more). Considering Google paid a lot of money for their map data they aren't going to let some ma and pop website use their data. By the way, DigitalGlobe supplies Google with the satellite photos and if you goto digitalglobe.com you will see they have some great products available.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    7. Re:Noooooooooo! by KiDas · · Score: 1

      I would bet that the main reason that this was taken down is because they were displaying images that either didn't add the watermark or were removing the watermarks. If they had added one Google watermark to the bottom of the tiled image they generated, this might not have happened.

      --

      A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity
    8. Re:Noooooooooo! by cft_128 · · Score: 2, Informative

      IIRC they were leaving the watermarks on the images.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    9. Re:Noooooooooo! by alphakappa · · Score: 1

      I think Keyhole uses aerial imagery from AirphotoUSA in addition to the satellite imagery, so it might just be a matter of time before they are also incorporated into Google maps. (Sub-meter resolution satellite photos are not available for all urban areas, so the only other option is to go for aerial imagery)

      --
      "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
    10. Re:Noooooooooo! by KiDas · · Score: 1

      I just checked some of the images I had saved and you can't see the watermarks in the image. If you zoom in closely there are some artifacts of the watermark in some places. I'm not sure, but it seems there was some removal method happening.

      --

      A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity
  5. That is friendly, by MrByte420 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No...

    1. Lawyers
    2. Due Dates
    3. Use of the word "compliance"
    4. Use of the word "further action"
    5. Nice invitation to a developers conference.

    I'll take that over the .*AA any day.

    --
    If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
    1. Re:That is friendly, by MrByte420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AND they said PLEASE! Please of all things! Its wonderful.

      --
      If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
    2. Re:That is friendly, by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      5. Nice invitation to a developers conference.

      That's an invitation from the site owners, not Google. Your other points hold true. it was a fairly non-threatening, nicely worded request. :-)

    3. Re:That is friendly, by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Damn, you used almost used a regex instead of a dos wildcard. The world really is changing.

    4. Re:That is friendly, by Albinofrenchy · · Score: 1

      Sure, they are being friendly, but it is most likely done to protect their image.

      Sure, they have the right, and sure no one should hold it against them. But why are we praising them for it?

      --
      "A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
    5. Re:That is friendly, by russiste · · Score: 5, Informative

      (I'm the Greg mentioned on the page)

      Actually, we were expecting to go to Where 2.0 before the shutdown - the part about the conference on the page (as it was prior to the slashdotting) was not from the Google spokesperson.

      --
      Loopsh of fury.
    6. Re:That is friendly, by ezzzD55J · · Score: 1
      Damn, you used almost used a regex instead of a dos wildcard. The world really is changing.

      why 'almost'?

      also, it's a unix glob pattern as well, not just dos wildcard..

    7. Re:That is friendly, by El_Servas · · Score: 1

      Come on.. I use almost use them all the time..

    8. Re:That is friendly, by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't we praise them for doing something that most companies wouldn't do?

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    9. Re:That is friendly, by mikkom · · Score: 1
      it was a fairly non-threatening, nicely worded request. :-)
      I think you meant:
      it was a fairly non-threatening, nicely worded cease and decist letter.
  6. script still around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least the gmerge script is still around.

  7. Interesting wording by jandrese · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It sounds like Google Maps had to sign an agreement not to let the image data be used for commercial purposes. I wonder if they got a letter telling them to take down the offending site or be sued?

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Interesting wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting



      I would additionally wonder if the satellite views are subject to a different license (for Google) than the roadmaps.

      I must admit that making large standalone images from the satellite views does, in fact, seem notably different than most of the other homebrew Googlemap sites out there, which may be why this particular site recieved this letter while the others didn't.

      But who knows... maybe this is just the start.

    2. Re:Interesting wording by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhhh yeah. Since we're speculating, don't you find it MUCH more likely that Google plans to offer businesses a way to tap into Google Maps for a fee?

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    3. Re:Interesting wording by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Yeah, especially since it was free site.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  8. Tough call by Nos. · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love google, and google maps is wonderful to play with. I had actually considered building something like the Chicago Crime page, but given the terms of service, thought I'd better not. I can see Google's point. They are providing a free service for individuals. Haveing another person/group/company use that freedom to build a new service and possibly profit off of it at the expense of the individuals it was created for is rough.

    That being said, I think there is a lot of potential for other uses of Google Maps, and hopefully at some point, Google will allow some sort of licenses for use other than personal.

    1. Re:Tough call by xiando · · Score: 4, Informative

      Making such a site would not be a problem if you simply ask Google for the proper permissions. Who knows, if you are lucky then you might get a deal. And if you don't, at least you have tried, all they can do is say No. IP and Copyright does not need to be a problem if you are willing to talk and explain your intentions. Takedown notices generally come when you violate Copyright without even trying to get a permission deal.

    2. Re:Tough call by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      They are providing a free service for individuals. Haveing another person/group/company use that freedom to build a new service and possibly profit off of it at the expense of the individuals it was created for is rough.

      It's only indirectly that your comment makes sense. The people using Google's stuff (including the infrastructure and all of that overhead) aren't doing so at the "expense of the individuals it was created for" in the sense of end users. What Google creates, it creates for its investors. They are not running a charity, they're taking a certain gamble that each of their projects, and the audience for them, will add up - in one way or another - to having done right by the people that ponied up the money to do it, and to keep paying the (huge!) bills for running it every day. It's their toy, they built it, they had an idea of how they expect it fit into their budget and forecasting, and supplying other businesses with that sort of data (or use of the data) for free isn't part of that picture.

      They're certainly going to allow other licensing for this, just like they do for other things... and like many of those other things, they're going to attach a value to it. And, it's no pay, no play. Considering what they already provide at no cost to end users/searchers, it's not surprising that they've got a commercial interest in something like /maps that are such a resource hog and source material cost center.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Tough call by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Interesting
      As someone who has tried to get a number of permission deals from various industries, I'll let you know right now that RIAA and MPAA related companies tend to completely ignore you, even when you've emailed, faxed and sent snail mail (there's no way to get to a real person in charge of such things at the phone numbers I've tried).

      Software publishers (I've never tried to contact a BSA publisher) and other independent media publishers are usually delighted to make a deal; often, even for free, or with a small percentage kickback if you're doing something for-profit.

      I'm glad Google has decided to side with the independents instead of the corporate behemoths on their treatment of individuals in this case, and actually acknowledge that corporations share the world with individual human beings.

    4. Re:Tough call by holovaty · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here are two pieces of evidence that Google does *not* disapprove of Google Maps hacks:

      1. A post to the official Google blog: http://google-code-featured.blogspot.com/2005/04/m apscraigslist-mashup.html

      "While we have no official API for Maps yet, work like this really is amazing and deserves recognition."

      2. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/05/google_m aps_hac.html

      "They responded that they had every intention to not shut them down as long as their licenses permit it, and one of the engineers insinuated that they might be working on a Google Maps API or a similar way to build on top of Maps (he actually said, "to make them not hacks," by which I think he meant not unauthorized)."

      Disclaimer: I'm the guy that did chicagocrime.org, so I'm biased in favor of openness.

    5. Re:Tough call by Elyscape · · Score: 1
      1. A post to the official Google blog: http://google-code-featured.blogspot.com/2005/04/m apscraigslist-mashup.html
      Actually, that's incorrect. The official Google blog is http://googleblog.blogspot.com/. What you linked was some other site.
      --
      I own itburns.net. What should I put there?
  9. Go Google! by oldosadmin · · Score: 4, Informative

    I must say... they really are, "not being evil".

    I've recieved a DMCA takedown notice before. Most aren't pretty. Personally, I never understood why most DMCA takedown notices were taken directly to ISP level, without even a word to the webmaster.

    In this case, Google sent a nice letter, requesting they take it down, and even explaining why. This is far superious to any other company takedown letter I've ever seen.

    --
    Jay | http://oldos.org
    1. Re:Go Google! by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      When I got my DMCA takedown notice from GameSpot (game screenshots) it was pretty nasty but they didn't contact my provider..

    2. Re:Go Google! by xiando · · Score: 1

      I have also got a DMCA takedown notice and it was intentionally mailed the upstream provider without any attempt to contact the proper e-mail given on the site and the DMCA link on the site. I think this is common for evil corporations. Like TPB kindly points out to someone who mailed them a DMCA notice: "Additionally, you have mistaken our ISP for us." http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php

    3. Re:Go Google! by oldosadmin · · Score: 1

      Yes -- same thing happened here.

      I've gotten two dmcas. First one went to my shared hosting provider, who cut off my http, on a friday around 5pm, and it had to stay off until I could contact them monday.

      Second time, I just got an email from my vps provider, linode.com, passing it along, and saying "handle it". I actually put up a forum thread on their site praising them for it.

      If any of you want a good provider, go with Linode. The staff is great, service is great... no real negatives to it.

      In case you were wondering, here is a link to the first DMCA notice I recieved: http://www.oldos.org/history/oms/letter.htm. Of course, that was two years ago. We're back up, and legal at http://www.oldos.org/.

      --
      Jay | http://oldos.org
    4. Re:Go Google! by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      Not only did they explain why, they even said, "If you have any questions or concerns, or if we have contacted the wrong people, please feel free to contact me directly."

      That is, they said: We will listen to you if you have something to say in response.

      Whoah!

    5. Re:Go Google! by Snaller · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah like to pirate bay while you still can - the swedish goverment passed a new law making what they do illegal from July first ;)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    6. Re:Go Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, thats not correct. The law will only make downloading copyrighted works illegal. Hosting copyrighted files is illegal in Sweden now, but since thepiratebay.org is just hosting torrent-files they are not breaking any laws, and the new law won't affect them. Hosting torrent-files will still be allowed.

  10. Clearly Derivative by Akoman · · Score: 1, Interesting

    OK, so it's pretty clear that the script is creating derivative works by stitching together the sat-maps. But how is Chicagocrime violating the terms?

    1. Re:Clearly Derivative by flood6 · · Score: 1
      But how is Chicagocrime violating the terms?

      Google's TOS allows people to use this service for personal use. The Chicagocrime site is using Google's info and displaying it to the public.

      From TFTOS:" The Google Services are made available for your personal, non-commercial use only. You may not use the Google Services to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales.

      I don't think the Chicagocrimes site has any ads there right now, so it is non-commercial, but it still not "personal use".

    2. Re:Clearly Derivative by Inhibit · · Score: 1

      You might be right. The way I'd read that (if I were thinking they had a lenient stance on it) is the second part being a refinement and definition of the first. In other words:

      The Google Services are made available for your personal, non-commercial use only.

      is a statement and

      You may not use the Google Services to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales.

      is the definition. Basically I'd read it as "you can't use this commercially". But I don't see a problem with them saying someone else can't piggy back on their bandwith or rip the images and then use them in their own creation without permission. The word "commercial" in there tends to make me think they'll take a lenient stance on "personal use" even if it's for public display.

      --
      You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
  11. Sorry Google, but there ain't no contract by russotto · · Score: 0, Troll

    Terms? There's no agreement between the users of a website and that website, no matter what Google says. Google may be able to prevent commercial use of the images because that would violate their statutory rights under the copyright act, but they can't just invent any old set of terms and successfully claim that by using their web site you've agreed to them, any more than Fox can dictate the terms of your television-watching to you.

    1. Re:Sorry Google, but there ain't no contract by brightboy · · Score: 1

      ...any more than Fox can dictate the terms of your television-watching to you.

      Shh! Don't give them any ideas!

    2. Re:Sorry Google, but there ain't no contract by flood6 · · Score: 1
      "Google may be able to prevent commercial use of the images..."

      That's the point. The webmasters are lifting images and using resources from Google without their permission. Google makes money by showing visitors ads. These tools do not show Google's ads to end users - Google can claim they lose money by having their resources taken without the chance to earn income.

      Their product is being offered to users in ways they did not intend, did not authorize, and are unable to monitize.

    3. Re:Sorry Google, but there ain't no contract by MikeTheYak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You almost had it. Google's ownership of copyrights actually does allow them to set the terms that they have. You can use their service however you see fit for the most part, but you can't COPY (or rebroadcast, or make a derivative work from, etc.) the information except under the rights they grant. It's not a contract; it's a license. It's the same mechanism the GPL uses to restrict what can be done with GPL-licensed software.

    4. Re:Sorry Google, but there ain't no contract by Sierra+Charlie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How did the parent get modded insightful?

      The maps are a copyrighted work. By default, you can't redistribute derivatives of that work unless the copyright holder explicitly grants permission.

      The terms of service explain your rights to the content... they don't restrict them.

      And yes... Fox can't dictate how you watch television. But try recording their lineup, stripping the commercials, and putting them on the Internet. :)

    5. Re:Sorry Google, but there ain't no contract by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      any more than Fox can dictate the terms of your television-watching to you.

      You must not have tried to record a favorite program going off the program guide.

    6. Re:Sorry Google, but there ain't no contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google may be able to prevent commercial use of the images because that would violate their statutory rights under the copyright act

      Where did that opinion come from, directly out of your arse? Copyright infringement does not require commercial use and in any case, copyright is not a statutory right.

    7. Re:Sorry Google, but there ain't no contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, you wanna fight them in court over this? I sure don't. Big evil companies (yes, Google turned evil the day they went public, sorry) get to do what they want.

      Besides, nobody says you can take somebody else's images and put them on your web site, which is what this guy was doing. They could shut him down just for the samples on the front page.

    8. Re:Sorry Google, but there ain't no contract by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      trust me they've already got plans on this. Broadcast flag anyone? start with recording then prevent people from changing channels during commercials.

  12. Google starts the takedown.... by ErikTheRed · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and then we finish the job with a Slashdotting. Nice.

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    1. Re:Google starts the takedown.... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      A bit like the iron fist in the velvet glove?

      --
      Deleted
    2. Re:Google starts the takedown.... by markild · · Score: 1

      Google Henchman: We don't have the power to take that site down, Sir.
      Google CEO: No problem, sport. We'll just post it on slashdot.

      First firefox is the new ie, then google becomes the new ms. What's next? SCO goes open source?

      --
      Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
      Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
  13. Down.. by devross · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are Chicago Crime and Google Sightseeing next to go?

    Unfortunately yes, but that's because of us, not their violation of terms with Google.

    --


    If these walls could talk they'd probly still ignore me. --MF DOOM
    1. Re:Down.. by Wiser87 · · Score: 1

      Go figure, the time when I actually want mod points is when I don't have them...

  14. There should be a new /. section called 'google'.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    too much google fetish for me

  15. Google Sightseeing? by bbc · · Score: 1


    I am not sure how Google Sightseeing could be in trouble, except for trademark violation. They do not seem to be using the maps, but rather the satellite photos, which cannot be copyrighted.

    1. Re:Google Sightseeing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful



      "I am not sure how Google Sightseeing could be in trouble, except for trademark violation. They do not seem to be using the maps, but rather the satellite photos, which cannot be copyrighted."

      Why not? Because the photographs were taken remotely, in space, instead of using an SLR in some dude's hands? A photograph's a photograph, and certainly these particular photographs represent a sizeable investment for the photographer.

      I wouldn't be surprised at all if they're being used by Google under a very specific license from the service that provided them.

    2. Re:Google Sightseeing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the satellite photos can be copyrighted. It is no different from someone taking a picture of a famous mountain or monument from the ground. The thing itself isn't copyrightable, but the photograph of it certainly is.

    3. Re:Google Sightseeing? by bbc · · Score: 1

      "Why not?"

      Because a work needs an author to be copyrightable. Because a work needs to be original to be copyrightable. Because Google's goal with these satellite images is presumably to create a true reproduction of how earth looks from space.

      "certainly these particular photographs represent a sizeable investment for the photographer"

      Sizeable investments have nothing to do with copyright.

    4. Re:Google Sightseeing? by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Well, if the Keyhole satellites were still owned by the feds you would be right but for the wrong reasons. Photographs have long been recognized as copyrightable, despite the fact that there is no "author". Works from the government are not copyrightable.

      But the satellites are now under the control of a Google subsidiary, so the photos taken by the satellites are owned by Google.

      The satellite is just a big automated camera under the control of technicians (read "photographers") at an earth ground station. Unless Google's lawyers have slipped up, those employees have signed away their rights to any of the pictures they take.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    5. Re:Google Sightseeing? by bbc · · Score: 1

      "Of course the satellite photos can be copyrighted. It is no different from someone taking a picture of a famous mountain or monument from the ground. The thing itself isn't copyrightable, but the photograph of it certainly is."

      Not unless there was a photographer controlling the picture taking. Copyright is not intended to incentivise machines to create works.

    6. Re:Google Sightseeing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      "Because a work needs an author to be copyrightable."

      Many organizations hold copyrights.

      Many techniques are procedural, or communal; the "author" may be abstracted, but does that mean the work itself is "Free"?



      "Because a work needs to be original to be copyrightable."

      The world is full of landmarks. And of nearly-identical photographs of those landmarks. And there's a thriving, copyright-protected business of selling those photographs.

      The subject may be "unoriginal", but the photograph itself certainly counts as original work.



      "Because Google's goal with these satellite images is presumably to create a true reproduction of how earth looks from space."

      I don't understand this argument at all. The vast majority of photography intends to "create a true reproduction of how [something] looks from [a certain position]." Does that mean that the vast majority of photography is uncopyrightable?



      "Sizeable investments have nothing to do with copyright."

      Who do you suppose is more prone to instantiating and defending their copyrights? Those with little invested, or those with "sizeable" amounts invested?

      And yeah, that could be a financial investment, but also a personal or emotional one.

    7. Re:Google Sightseeing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because a work needs an author to be copyrightable.

      Did you think the photo fairy made them appear? A corporation is a perfectly valid entity to "author" something.

      Because a work needs to be original to be copyrightable.

      What other work, praytell, are the works copying? The link you provided dealt with a situation in which the photographs were simply exact reproductions of an existing public domain work. Last time I checked if I took a picture of a mountain or tree I owned that particular photo's copyright even though the tree previously existed in nature and wasn't "original".

      Because Google's goal with these satellite images is presumably to create a true reproduction of how earth looks from space.

      Do you also believes maps and globes are not copyrighted?

      You have a very skewed view of IP law, a Google search does not make you an expert.

    8. Re:Google Sightseeing? by Omnieiunium · · Score: 1

      Yah, I have been visiting that site since day one (before they moved to googlesightseeing.com) and I don't see how. They give credit to google everywhere. Heck, they just provide a link to the actual site. I don't see how that violates the terms.

    9. Re:Google Sightseeing? by Mik3D · · Score: 1

      I think the various Sat Techs at places like Space Imaging, Digital Globe and Spot Image would take issue with that.

      Sattelite imaging is not an automated activity by any means. There is a great deal of planning and processing that goes on to make those images useable.

    10. Re:Google Sightseeing? by nunchux · · Score: 1

      They do not seem to be using the maps, but rather the satellite photos, which cannot be copyrighted. No... All photographs are copyright the photographer who took them. Even satellite photos. If you check Google Satellite it says so right on the map-- "(c) 2005 DigitalGlobe, EarthSat" Now, my question is, I never signed a release for Goole/DigitalMaps to use the image of my house, which is private property. Can I sue them for showing my roof?

    11. Re:Google Sightseeing? by ip_fired · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. In fact, anyone can go and take a picture of anything in public.

      Now, if it was taking pictures of *inside* your house, you might have an issue. ;)

      --
      Don't count your messages before they ACK.
    12. Re:Google Sightseeing? by nunchux · · Score: 2, Informative


      No. In fact, anyone can go and take a picture of anything in public.

      Now, if it was taking pictures of *inside* your house, you might have an issue. ;)


      I was making a bad joke about the roof, of course, but I do want to point out that photography in public isn't a copyright issue, it's more of a nebulous "do you have the right to use my image?" issue that isn't completely defined in the law.

      It's not quite as simple as "you can photograph anyone or anything in public"... Using anyone's image (or an image of their business or property, outside or in) for commercial purpose without permission leaves you open for a civil suit. That goes for everything from advertising to hollywood movies to art gallery exhibition to porn on the web. Journalism isn't even excluded, though it would be difficult to win a case against a news outlet. But even photojournalists try to get personal and location releases when they can.

      You're inviting trouble, for example, to use a photo of a woman subathing or the exterior of a business without the subject's written consent. It's not techincally illegal-- but you're also not covered by a law that says you CAN do it. Not unless the subject is a celebrity or politician.

      Also, there are actually few areas that are truly "in public." A strip mall or shopping mall, for example, belongs to someone-- and that includes everything, even the parking lot. A city street is public, but you don't have the explicit freedom to use a picture of a business' storefront.

    13. Re:Google Sightseeing? by matria · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are a number of "public" buildings, fountains and sculptures in public parks, that are copyrighted and you can get in trouble for trying to take pictures, especially if you use those pictures on a website or something.

    14. Re:Google Sightseeing? by bbc · · Score: 1

      "All photographs are copyright the photographer who took them."

      If you had taken the trouble to follow the link I posted in my first message, you would have seen this is simply not true. A work must be original to be copyrighted. Original means that the author must bring his own interpretation and experience to the picture he takes.

      A photographer who tries to make exact reproductions of paintings in a museum, does not earn a copyright, because the photo is not original: the author tries to put as little as possible of himself in the photo, and as much as possible of the painting.

      Similarly, there is no self in a satellite, so the photos a satellite takes cannot be copyrighted.

      "If you check Google Satellite it says so right on the map--"(c) 2005 DigitalGlobe, EarthSat""

      Misrepresenting copyright status is illegal in some jurisdictions, but unfortunately not followed up enough.

      "Can I sue them for showing my roof?"

      I doubt it. The design of your roof may be property of the architect though, so if you designed your own house...

    15. Re:Google Sightseeing? by bbc · · Score: 1

      "--Copyright is not intended to incentivise machines to create works."

      "I think the various Sat Techs at places like Space Imaging, Digital Globe and Spot Image would take issue with that."

      They would hardly take issue with the statement that a satellite cannot be an author. If the satellite isn't an author, it cannot earn a copyright. Only if these Sat Techs control the picture taking (or editing) a copyright is generated, and then it is owned by the Sat Techs or (most likely) the companies they work for, and then only if certain conditions are met. Sweat of the brow is probably not enough: the Sat Techs need to make creative choices as to how to display something.

      I looked at a Google Maps image of the center of Dallas today. (For reference: This silhouette at Wikipedia shows some of the buildings too.) It took me a while to figure out what was going on there, it almost seemed like the city had been designed by Escher. Only after a few seconds I realized that some of the skyscrapers are leaning left, and others are leaning right.

      Somebody must have made a decision on what to do in this case. If he or she made that decision per image, that may have generated a copyright.

    16. Re:Google Sightseeing? by bbc · · Score: 1

      --"Because a work needs an author to be copyrightable."

      "Many organizations hold copyrights."

      Your statement does not contradict mine. Copyrights can be transferred, and works can be made for hire. In both instances though the work needs an author to generate a copyright at all. No author, no copyright.

      "The vast majority of photography intends to "create a true reproduction of how [something] looks from [a certain position]." Does that mean that the vast majority of photography is uncopyrightable?"

      Perhaps, if you are litterally talking about snapshots. Of course, the timing of the snapshot counts as a creative act too.

    17. Re:Google Sightseeing? by bbc · · Score: 1

      "Did you think the photo fairy made them appear? A corporation is a perfectly valid entity to "author" something."

      I am totally cool with your enthusiastic display of anthropomorphism, but am afraid it would not hold up in court. Companies cannot create works, just as companies cannot snatch a purse. Companies can order someone to create a work though, or to snatch a purse, and they can end up with a copyright or legal troubles for that.

      "What other work, praytell, are the works copying? The link you provided dealt with a situation in which the photographs were simply exact reproductions of an existing public domain work. Last time I checked if I took a picture of a mountain or tree I owned that particular photo's copyright even though the tree previously existed in nature and wasn't "original"."

      I am afraid you misunderstand the meaning of the word "original" as it is used in copyright law. A common mistake to make.

      Here, original does not mean that nobody made the same work before, but rather that they brought their own insights into the creation of the work. Regardless of Corel v. Bridgeman I can make a copyrighted photo of a picture hanging in a museum. The photo merely needs to be an interpretation, my interpretation.

      Similarly, if you write a song, and independently I write the same song the next day, I still have a copyright to the song, even if I weren't the first to write it.

      The copyright is generated by the creative act, not by the subject.

  16. The gMail invite spooler's been shut down, too by obli · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Google's been shutting down the gMail invite spooler , too, but according to the creator and owner of the site (http://isnoop.net/gmail/) his legal notification from the legal team was quite friendly, it's pretty cool that google isn't the kind of company that keeps rabid lawyers around to sue people. See thread on Somethingawful.com for more: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s= &threadid=1580408

  17. montage-a-google by griasr · · Score: 1

    Montage-a-Google http://www.kiffer.at/m-a-g seems not be gettin problems. they are als listed on wikipedia.

  18. I'm surprised Google let others leech like this by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm actually surprised Google let others leech on their bandwidth like this without paying them or anything. Same with e.g. GoogleFS and other hacks. Either this is a sign of more things to come, or it's just one of few sites they didn't like even with their highly relaxed stance about others leeching on their services.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:I'm surprised Google let others leech like this by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm actually surprised Google let others leech on their bandwidth like this without paying them or anything.

      Google is flush with IPO cash.
      Bandwidth is cheap, but ideas are expensive.

      By letting others "leech on their bandwidth" google fosters creativity. Creativity that has google at its foundation. If the result is even just a couple of good and new marketable uses of google's product, then the investment in bandwidth will have paid for itself a hundred-fold.

      Think of it as a cooperative model of development and progress - kind of like academia, instead of the hording model that most Western business is so focused on.

  19. Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by product+byproduct · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google Maps uses a fixed longitude/latitude distance ratio of ~0.772, while the true ratio depends on latitude (the ratio should be cos(latitude)). So Google Map is optimized for 39.5 of latitude (N or S), and the maps are increasingly distorted as you go toward the poles or the equator.

    For example, Anchorage is stretched horizontally by a factor of 1.60 (yup those should be right angles).

    MapQuest is similarly distorted, but Yahoo Maps is not.

    1. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Not sure you are correct. If you zoom out two levels, you see blocks and blocks of perfectly right angle rectangular city blocks.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    2. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by Goobermunch · · Score: 1, Troll

      I don't know, they look pretty square to me . . .

      http://maps.google.com/maps?q=anchorage+ak&ll=61.2 44263,-149.808726&spn=0.006927,0.010224&hl=en

      If anyone's curious, that's my old house.

      --AC

    3. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by truesaer · · Score: 1

      I don't see why they can't. As soon as Google informs you that you are not permitted to access their map images unless you agree to their terms you should have to comply. If you don't know of the terms you may be able to legitimately say "I used a standard protocol," but once you've been informed of a condition for accessing someone elses property/server then you're on notice.

    4. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 2, Interesting
      For reference, here are all the links.
      Google
      Yahoo
      MapQuest

      The reason Google is distorted is because the satellite image matches with the road maps. The satellite isn't nearly as far north as it would need to be to properly take the images it has. It is closer to the horizon so it gives a distorted looking image. Google most likely distorts the maps on purpose.

    5. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by truesaer · · Score: 1

      Whoops, replied to the wrong post sorry!

    6. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      WTF kind of animal do they have in their zoo up there, Cthulhu?!!!!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    7. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by Mille+Mots · · Score: 1
      That's interesting information, I wonder if the maps in Microsoft MapPoint are similarly distorted.

      But, back to the matter at hand, namely Google Maps. Should these North-South streets be a lot closer together, then?

    8. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by mapmaker · · Score: 2, Informative

      All maps are distorted. The earth is round(ish) and maps are flat, and you can not represent a curved surface using a flat surface without distorting it. For a demonstration of this concept, try flattening an orange peel without squishing/stretching it.

      however, different map projections can minimize distortion at different locations. What Google could (and maybe should) do is dynamically change the map projection used depending on the location currently being viewed to minimize distortion at that location.

      If any Google HR reps are watching, I'd be glad to help with this. Make me an offer! :)

    9. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by slim · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not sure you are correct. If you zoom out two levels, you see blocks and blocks of perfectly right angle rectangular city blocks.

      This is because those blocks are oriented perpendicular to the compass points, so stretching the map East-West doesn't affect the angles.

      I don't see it as a big deal: the only perfect map projection is a globe, and my monitor's flat.

    10. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by acceleriter · · Score: 1

      One could argue that making your data available via that standard protocol implies a consent that can't be withdrawn or conditioned on any such terms of service.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    11. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it doesn't. The blocks the Yahoo map are rectangular. The block in the Google map are paralellograms.

    12. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      scary stuff double elctrified fence, maybe they're clonning Bushes

    13. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by pi42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They do already have the technology for this -- has anybody used Keyhole (now Google Earth)?

      Google Maps and Keyhole share the same sattelite imagery, I believe, the difference being that Keyhole is a separate 3D-accelerated application. Keyhole renders even the smallest patch of land as being part of the curved sphere that is the Earth. Pretty wild.

    14. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by Ixalon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reason they do this is to simplify the mapping of latitude and longitude to pixel coordinates. In reality 1 second east/west is a different distance on the ground depending on how far from the equator you are (e.g. 360 degrees is zero distance at the poles).

      What they've done is picked a reasonable average for this distance over the area they cover (North America and the UK), then projected the map so this distance equals the same number of pixels over the whole map. This way they don't need to resort to trig functions in their Javascript.

    15. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by pinchhazard · · Score: 1, Troll
      For example, Anchorage is stretched horizontally by a factor of 1.60 (yup those should be right angles).

      How did you get to +5? Did any mods bother to zoom out or scroll around on the linked map? There are plenty of square and rectangular city blocks on the map, your link just shows a place where the streets don't run to 90 degree angles.

      YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT

      --
      Do you love freedom??? Do you love freedom!!! DO YOU LOVE FREEDOM!!!!!!!!
    16. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by Stankatz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did you ask google for permission before posting that link? Hmmm?

    17. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by Anm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually... you are the failure for neither understanding the nature of the problem nor reading the reply posts that explain it:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=152099&cid=127 62147

      Anm

    18. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you stretch HORIZONTALLY an axis-aligned rectangle, then of course it still looks like a rectangle.

      You have to scout the Anchorage area for city blocks that are not axis-aligned to prove anything, just like the original poster did.

      What kind of IQ do you have?

    19. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's a missile silo?

    20. Re:Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It looks like a phased antenna array. The darker parts that look like a fence are actually shadows. It's located on the grounds of the Elmendorf Air Force Base. Perhaps it is the High Altitude Monitoring Station (HLMS)?

  20. Next to go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are Chicago Crime and Google Sightseeing next to go?"
    Yep, judging by the unresponsiveness of their servers it looks like that. They are already gone.

  21. Who wrote that headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf does that mean!? fired.

    1. Re:Who wrote that headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct sir! The proper phrasing should have been " World's First Google Maps Hack Takedown "!!!!

    2. Re:Who wrote that headline? by rastakid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a funny headline. I was a little twisted too about whether to consider 'Maps' a verb or a noun and the same for 'Hack'.

  22. One day... by LegendOfLink · · Score: 5, Funny

    "but that has to be the nicest take-down note I've ever seen; it's polite, friendly and reasonable."

    Many years from now, we will see a similar Slashdot post when Google becomes the New World Order:

    Dear Bill,

    The GoogleOS team recently noticed that you guys have had your asses handed to you, by us. We commend you on your many years of somehow staying at the top, despite the fact that you sorely neglected securing your software. Sorry we had to break your record; but your evil violated the official Evil Google TOS, listed on our home page.

    Lots of love and warm tapioca,
    Larry and Sergei

  23. google cache? by zerkon · · Score: 0

    Anyone have the google cache to their site? it seems slow...

  24. Waste of effort... by Beek+Dog · · Score: 2, Funny

    They might as well just post the offending URL here. Down quicker than you can say "Service Unavailable".

  25. Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQuest by compmanio36 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I used Google maps once, and I got SO lost in downtown Seattle. Their service is nice and full of features, but I prefer simple accuracy over fancy graphics anyday, especially when it means getting lost in the maze of one-way streets and idiot drivers that is downtown of any major city.

    No, Google is good at a lot of things, but right now, maps is NOT one of those things.

  26. Intergalactic Search Battle by krudler · · Score: 1

    Be there for the fantabulous extravaganza!

    It's Google Wallpapers versus Google, Google versus Google Sightseeing, and Google Sightseeing versus Your Mother!

    It's INSTUPITUOUS!

    1. Re:Intergalactic Search Battle by hexix · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Deltron. Nice.

  27. Still a little work to do, methinks by poptones · · Score: 1

    Why does it show me a map of the SF bay area when looking for an apartment in Austin? My friend in Austin always says its a lot like San Francisco but I didn't think he meant it that much.

  28. Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu by generic-man · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't worry. I'm sure the maps will be better once Google Maps is out of beta.

    You wouldn't trust a beta service to do something as vital as navigation, now would you?

    --
    For more information, click here.
  29. Takedowns.... by telstar · · Score: 1

    First takedown, courtesy of Google...
    Second takedown, courtesy of Slashdot...

    Anybody got a copy of the note?

  30. Re:What is this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That story summurization assumes too much of the reader. Most notably, that the reader has any clue whatsoever what the offshoot in question was.

    Well, er, no, it's called "Google Wallpapers".

    The site, which *is* still working, showed you what it did: stitch several results from google maps together to map you a desktop background.

  31. Why wallpaper is bad and not housing... by MAdMaxOr · · Score: 1

    Google isn't threatened by people creating new services out of maps. If it was up to Google, you could probably do anything you wanted.

    However, Google has suppliers. They are very interested in protecting their copyrighted data. They are, as yet, willing to allow modification of the Maps service for things like the housing map, etc. I'm not even sure that their agreement permits them to complain, as it is still Google serving the images.

    Creating derivative works of the actual map photos crossed a line with the suppliers.

  32. They violated the TOS by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

    By stitching and thus changing the images. It is a really neat thing... what would be better is for them to release it as a tool that home users can use for free which would avoid the TOS violation as far as I can tell.

    --
    If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
  33. Leech? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You couldn't *pay* for the publicity that people like /. readers, admins, developers give for Google.

    Know the first thing I tell a new user who know bugger all about the Internet? www.google.com. In fact, I usually set it as their home page to make my life easier.

    That translates directly into advertising revenue, and I do it because they have a spectacularly good search system, very cool add on tools and they let us play with them for free. They know *exactly* what they're doing and I'm fine with it.

    --
    Deleted
  34. Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seattle is not a major city.

  35. Full Text of Take Down by lxt · · Score: 1

    The site looked like it was about to die a slow and painful death, so here's the notice in full:

    "The Google Maps team recently noticed your Google Maps tile "stitcher" to see developers interested in our products and we commend you on the service. That said, we would appreciate it if you voluntarily remove your service and stop using Google Maps on your web site. The service violates the Maps Terms of Service available at http://www.google.com/help/terms_local.html, and jeopardizes our ability to make Google Maps available to the public because it encourages non-personal use of Google Maps.

    If you have any questions or concerns, or if we have contacted the wrong people, please feel free to contact me directly. Otherwise, amueltc please let us know as soon as possible when the service has been
    removed.

    Thanks,

    Bret Taylor
    Product Manager, Google Maps

    "

  36. Theme day by JJahn · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't this headline be: "World's First Google Maps Hack Takedown"

  37. Google's Merits by ikegami · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see anyone arguing the merits of Google's action, so I will. From what I can see from the Google cache of the web site, I see that following:

    1. They perform automated queries on Google to get the map pieces in order to produce composite images. (Terms of Service violation)
    2. They produced composite images from Copyrighted material. (Copyright violation)
    3. They hosted (distributed) the composite images made from Copyrighted material. (Copyright violation)

    This gives Google good reason to shut down "Google Wallpapers" as it stands. I don't think it Google has any claims against the python script itself, just its users (which includes "Google Wallpapers").

    This differs from "Google Sightseeing" and "Chicago Crime" (as far as I know, since I can't verify util the sites are back up), which only link to maps on Google, which means

    1. There are no automated queries. The user must click on the link to view the image.
    2. No derivative product is made. They only provide a link to Google.
    3. No distribution is made. The maps are solely on Google's server.
    1. Re:Google's Merits by z4ce · · Score: 1

      Stitching together images that you receive is NOT a copyright violation. Other than that, I agree with your post.

      Google probably had no choice but to ask them to turn it off. The map providers probably state you must prevent people from turning these into print-quality maps. This is why I also doubt they will persue any action against the other google-map usage.

      Ian

    2. Re:Google's Merits by yoshjosh · · Score: 1

      I don't agree. At best, posting a composite image would be considered creating a "derivative work" under copyright law. That's still not allowed.

    3. Re:Google's Merits by spacefight · · Score: 1

      For your very own (desktop wallpaper) personal use, this should be fine, or isn't even this case allowed? Can't I print out a google map and cut it in half and post it to my monitor? So why can't I stich two maps and post it on my desktop... strange. Just do not publish it.

    4. Re:Google's Merits by Snaller · · Score: 1

      So what. They were simply automating what people could and can do anyway. Why anyone would want such an ugly wallpaper is something else.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    5. Re:Google's Merits by yoshjosh · · Score: 1

      In my mind, the question is: are you creating a derivative work? If you're just putting Google Maps in a frame, and messing with the script to make it do what you want it to do, that's fine. If you take that map, make a print out, and post it all over town, then you're producing an illegal derivative work. Google gives you permission to print out its maps for personal use (via the "Print" button). Likewise, if you stich together two maps for your own desktop, that's probably de minimis infringement, and Google doesn't care.

    6. Re:Google's Merits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that they will let people use Google Maps as long as you do not create a "new product" with it. "New product" meaning anything completely modifying the spirit, functionnality or appearance or Google Maps.
      If you only use Google Maps to display locations on a map (like http://www.housingmaps.com/ or http://www.cytadia.us/ to take a real estate example) you should be fine. If you extract data from the maps to create a new service (i.e. a wallpaper) you'll be in trouble. It all seems reasonable to me.
      The other thing they might/could look (to see if they should shutdown a site or not) is the location of the javascripts you're using to interact with maps. Is it from their servers or is it a modified, "custom" version ?

    7. Re:Google's Merits by jrauch · · Score: 1

      Oh thank you reason! It looks like this service was doing things that in the long run were bad for all of us. Google maps is great, and I have worked on a number of hacks myself, but they just expand on the service in useful ways. This service was pounding on the system and I think Google had an appropriate response. Time will tell of course, if these letters start coming to the better hacks then I will complain, but at this point I'll give Google the benefit of the doubt and frankly I look forward to an official Google maps api.

  38. Google moving to the dark side? by shanen · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Frankly, I've been increasingly suspicious of Google since they decided it was such a neat idea to keep other people's email. That's something with serious opportunities for abuse--and there's no good reason these days. Everyone (who counts) has GBs of disk space and powerful CPUs, and there's no reason that the email couldn't be stored, indexed, and searched on your local machine. Why do they need *MY* email on *THEIR* machines? Something is wrong there.

    This new event is something different. It doesn't matter how polite they are about it. They are flexing their muscles, and putting on my historian's hat, power always gets abused. They talk about empowering the little guys and doing good, but when push comes to shove, look who got shoved.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Google moving to the dark side? by Cursive23 · · Score: 0

      Shhhhh, remember where you're posting. This is sloogle (Slashdot was bought by google). You're either pro-google here or automatically labled some tirading pro-microsoft windows fanboy who doesn't understand C++ references in jokes!

    2. Re:Google moving to the dark side? by zerbot · · Score: 1

      I mostly like the fact that I can access gmail from anywhere. That way I don't have to boot a kid from the one computer that has my email on it, I can just use another one.

    3. Re:Google moving to the dark side? by shanen · · Score: 1
      Okay, so they could add an option to keep some of the latest email on the Web server. Why do they need to keep all of it? And do you really want *ALL* of your email to be accessible to anyone who manages to put a key logger on any computer you happen to check your email from?

      Even Gandhi had enemies.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    4. Re:Google moving to the dark side? by hobbesx · · Score: 1
      You do realize that they might want to make backups, right? At least this way there doesn't need to be some sort of Google Mail task force running around making sure that every last bit info is always blasted away as soon as you pull it from the server. You also realise that any ISP will store your messages at some point? I worked for a mid-sized ISP in the dot-com boom, and they made backups of server-held messages, especially before server replacements and other maintainence.

      Oh- and nobody wants to read your e-mail. Really. There's no point, and it's not even remotely feasable(sp?).

      --
      This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
      Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
    5. Re:Google moving to the dark side? by zerbot · · Score: 1

      I understand that the way I do things isn't available to most people, but I don't check gmail on any computer that isn't under my control.

      You can POP your email off gmail, and you can delete things, so if you want, you can implement the "only the latest email on the Web server" idea if you like.

    6. Re:Google moving to the dark side? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and it's not even remotely feasable(sp?)."

      how about 'mail -f /var/mail/hobbesx'? I work at a mid-sized ISP now, and had I the desire (which I don't), any users mail is accessible just like that. I'd say that's feasable.

  39. Anyone else see a pattern? by goldspider · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Google has website shut down, asserting their intelelctual property rights = reasonable

    MPAA has website shut down, asserting their intellectual property rights = Gestapo

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:Anyone else see a pattern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Misspelling intellectual = priceless!

    2. Re:Anyone else see a pattern? by matth1jd · · Score: 1

      The reason that pattern occurs is that google is asserting their intellectual property rights in a friendly way. Also Google isn't shutting the site down - they're asking first! "Please take down your site." Which I read as "Please take down the site so we don't have to sue you. By the way we have more lawyers and cash than you but we're trying to be nice first."

      The MPAA or RIAA usually comes in guns blazing.

      Whether or not people would really comply if the *AA's asked nicely is another issue.

    3. Re:Anyone else see a pattern? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      It's in the method. Google sends a polite request. MPAA's squad of jackbooted stormtrooperesque lawyers sends a demand.

    4. Re:Anyone else see a pattern? by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Is that to suggest that the manner in which the **AAs assert their IP rights is what gets Slashbots frothing?

      I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut the mustard. This is a clear double standard.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    5. Re:Anyone else see a pattern? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      In part, yes. There's more to it though. The **AAs, in their zeal to protect their IP rights, have blocked legitimate usage of legitimately obtained content. Remember the RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia case of a few years ago?

    6. Re:Anyone else see a pattern? by notasheep · · Score: 1

      OK, so if I ask politely you for all of your money while my gun is still in its holster, then I'm really not a bad guy? Hey, I'm only asking - right?

      I find it hilarious that folks on Slashdot, who get all upset at DRM that is designed to ensure somebody's IP (music) is only used for personal purposes, but when Google asserts their IP rights they're great because they are initially nice about it?

      Go figure.

      --
      Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
  40. Re:There should be a new /. section called 'google by shakezula · · Score: 2, Funny

    I agree, I mean damn...BSD has its own section, and its DEAD!

    --
    I know what you're thinking. Did I forward 65,535 packets or 65,536 packets?
  41. Google maps for the UK is shite by Dominic+Burns · · Score: 2, Informative

    On two occasions in the last few weeks I've tried to use the point-to-point directions based on post codes.

    The information is utterly incorrect and extremely ambiguous.

    Take note, fellow UK /.ers, it's an alpha release for us.

    1. Re:Google maps for the UK is shite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, when searching sometimes for places in St. Helens they come up with the address in Warrington...which is like 10 miles away :)

  42. MapQuest is the same as Google, but Yahoo is right by vistic · · Score: 1

    Google and MapQuest both look stretched out horizontally... Yahoo is the only one that looks normal. That's interesting.

  43. In other Google news... by uberdave · · Score: 2, Funny

    Google is releasing a new beta project called Google Posters. With it, you will be able to have large poster sized satellite maps of any point of interest.

    1. Re:In other Google news... by Surr3al · · Score: 1

      I believe you are making this up, unless you can provide us a source for this information.

    2. Re:In other Google news... by yellowbkpk · · Score: 1

      I would bet pretty soundly that Google did this because the guy clearly said you could get "posters" out of the stitchings. That pretty clearly goes above and beyond personal use. All of the other GMap mods have been clearly for personal use and don't suggest to their users that they could make money off of Google's data.

    3. Re:In other Google news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he's making it up. It's a JOKE!

  44. They should come to europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In europe "terms of use" for websites are void and google could do nothing.

    1. Re:They should come to europe by xiando · · Score: 1

      That depends on what EU country you are in, but it is generally true that local laws tend to override any unfair "Terms of use" crap placed on a website. That being said, websites are still subject to Copyright and a website owner generally only grants you the right to use _their_ website. Google could take action against people breaking their IP rights regardless of the "Terms of use" listed.

  45. Oh spare me. by nobodyman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So if RIAA sent you a bouquet of flowers with a cute, humorous, handwritten greeting card personally signed by the PR manager informing your court appearance date, it wouldn't be so bad?
    Well, if I was serving up MP3's of $.50's latest album, yeah, it wouldn't be as bad. But your question is apples/oranges anyway. Yours is a piracy issue whereas Gogglemaps is a Terms of Use violation. Me and a friend were discussing just this very thing. In spite of what some Google employees might say about how they like to foster innovation and so on, if the terms of use say you can't do it you can pretty well expect that you will probably run afoul of Google. Without getting into the legality argument of certain Terms of Use, let me limit this to just an analysis of likelihood of getting on the wrong side of a lawyer. Caveat Scriptor. You are asking for trouble if:
    • You take someone elses content and pass it off as yours (even if you say "gee thanks google")
    • Violate a Terms of Use agreement. Even if it's the ToU is hopelessly vague you can bet that you'll get a call as soon as your site gets popular enough
    • You rush headlong into making a beta API the centerpiece of your website. Yeah, do it because it's neat, but don't whine when it breaks unless you want people to say "what the hell were you even thinking?". Even if it's Google's endless beta phase, if you rely on behaviour of a beta app, and then your site/app breaks... tough noogies.
    The gyst is that Google is a company that makes a product and wants to make money and has investors blah blah blah..., just like Microsoft or Wallmart. You can argue tell your blue in the face about right/wrong, nice/not nice, good/evil, but the simple fact is that if you do something that legalize says you shouldn't do, and you get burned... don't be surprised. Google is going to oversee what people are doing with the googemaps... if they like it, they'll take the idea and incorporate it into their business model, if they don't like it (don't like == taxes resources or threatens revenue), the lawyers come knocking.
    1. Re:Oh spare me. by karmatic · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are both copyright violations. Copyright law specifically says you are not allowed to distribute copies, nor derivitive works (both of which this might be), without the authorization of the owner.

      The only reason the Terms of Service come up at all is because they function as a license. The ToS might say that you are allowed to do X (distribute copies), provided you do Y (whatever google says you have to do, to do X). This was not the case. The problem is not "violating the Terms of Service"; that's not a crime. The issue would be the distribution of works covered under copyright, without express permission or a license to do so.

    2. Re:Oh spare me. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      The gyst

      "gist"

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    3. Re:Oh spare me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/crime/tort/

      You insensitive clod.

    4. Re:Oh spare me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the more people read about this, the more Google sounds like MS and Wal-Mart.

      Sure, people still, in the vast majority, shop at Wal-Mart, or use an MS OS. People will use Google.

      But frankly, the MS's upper management claims of Google's downfall is becoming prophetic. Google is no longer "in". They're innovation now is about beating people into submission re their terms of service, whether or not they ask nicely.

      iow, they're free...with caveats. *yawn* We've been down this road before, and it sucks.

    5. Re:Oh spare me. by pugugly · · Score: 1

      No - Google's is, and can only be, a license violation. It cannot be a copyright violation, because the application is not serving up copyrighted data - maps are factual data, like equations, tables of elements, etcetera.

      I honestly don't agree with it as a licensing issue either, but yeah, it does make a difference when someone is polite about it - it also gives the author a chance to address this with google and possibly work out a compromise with them. Even if unsuccessful, he doesn't *feel* like he was stomped on - .

      But that's between the author and Google.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    6. Re:Oh spare me. by baadger · · Score: 1

      "No - Google's is, and can only be, a license violation."

      Licensed copywritten material.

      "the application is not serving up copyrighted data - maps are factual data"

      They aren't just maps they are also photographs.
      Surely aerial photography is covered by copyright laws and is licensed (to Google) like anything else.

      The way I see it from a common sense perspective is the "terms" of service consist of a mix of

      * Disclaimers of warranty and
      * Conditions of use copywritten material.

      Copyright and the 'derivative works' shizzle doesn't come into the spotlight here. Legal action for copyright violation would most likely come from the source (whatever 3rd party Google get their photos from). Google wouldn't take that legal route directly unless they have an exclusive deal on the content (which they probably do) and because Gmerge were only really providing the means to use the material in such a way and not doing it themselves (much) it'd be a difficult argument to win.

      A company defending it's right to have the opportunity at a later time to open up a similar service to a less-personal/business audience is fairy muff.

      I don't see the difference between conditions set forth in terms of service about it's use and the rights protected by law to allow licensed copyright holders to make profit from their works.

  46. It may be the nicest . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but this

    The Google Maps team recently noticed your Google Maps tile "stitcher" to see developers interested in our products and we commend you on the service.

    is an awful sentence.

  47. old school Mafia MO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AFAIK, the Mafia from days of old would send a pre-ransom letter to potential victims that was flowing with praise and gratitude. The idea was to make a normally unpleasant act easier for both parties - nobody gets physically injured and the correspondence is very civil.

    So yeah, being polite doesn't mean that everything's cool.

    Anyway...
    more likely, since every other company sends harshly worded C&D letters, maybe Google just wants to be different.

  48. FloridaSexualPredators.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if www.FloridaSexualPredators.com will be the next to go also?

  49. Does anyone have a mirror? by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

    They appearantly posted a windows executable version, does anyone have a mirror of this?

    1. Re:Does anyone have a mirror? by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes. Google does, in fact.

      The cache for the page, Linked here, has a link to the executable. The link still works. Get it while it's hot.

      In fact, I think every person that makes a google utility should make an executable version for this very reason. It would save you bandwidth, it would save me loading time. Release it GPL and someone can make a multi-utility. Sounds great. Get to it, programmers!

    2. Re:Does anyone have a mirror? by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      Wow thanks... when I used the mirror in the first comment link there was no link to the .exe, I just saw refernece to it on the original site in the 'pre-slashdotted' image...

      Thank you!

    3. Re:Does anyone have a mirror? by paronomasia5 · · Score: 1

      can someone put up their own mirror the exe / py script?

    4. Re:Does anyone have a mirror? by paronomasia5 · · Score: 1

      finally found a google like that works :-) http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:lUcwBFt6qWcJ: gmerge.2ni.net/gmerge-Wallpaper.py+&hl=en&client=f irefox-a (their initial links have been taken down..)

  50. So all you buggers know what "amueltc " is? by adbudha+kusu · · Score: 1

    So what is it?

  51. asshole! by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    While we are on the subject, got any bittorrent sites that you want to expose?

    (I say that with total humor, you're not an asshole. I don't think...)

  52. Or you could go with (gasp) Microsoft... by MrScience · · Score: 1

    TerraServer, which has been around much longer than Google Maps, has a documented SOAP API for grabbing image data.

    --

    You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

    1. Re:Or you could go with (gasp) Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      TerraServer, which has been around much longer than Google Maps, has a documented SOAP API for grabbing image data.


      Yeah, but then the best you can get is 1m black and white. The images from Google are really beautiful.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that just because they are good I can take them. I've used images from Terraserver in a mapping program I wrote. I got all excited when I saw Google maps until I read the TOS. I haven't been back since.

      Terraserver seems to still be the best freely available data, but it isn't nearly as good as the data from Google Maps

      jcvqqgq

    2. Re:Or you could go with (gasp) Microsoft... by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      TerraServer relies on PD USGS data, so they don't have to worry about their data providers limiting redistribution. Unfortunately, this means that they don't have any vector street capabilities, as TIGER doesn't quite cut it for routing.

      For the most part, though, I prefer looking at the topo image anyway.

    3. Re:Or you could go with (gasp) Microsoft... by MrScience · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but then the best you can get is 1m black and white.

      If you clicked my link, you would see big, bold red letters that say:
      Version 2.0 of the TerraService is now available! Version 2.0 supports the Urban Area data theme.

      From May, 2004:
      "We have been loading more of the new, high resolution, natural color imagery called "Urban Area" data. In addition to Seattle, we have added Washington D.C., Atlanta, Chicago, Houston to name a few of the major cities added the database. We will continue to add new Urban Area data as it arrives from the USGS. We have received 46 of the 133 planned cities this calendar year."

      --

      You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

    4. Re:Or you could go with (gasp) Microsoft... by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but then the best you can get is 1m black and white. The images from Google are really beautiful.


      In a lot of the metro areas they have "Urban Area" aerials which can be higher-res and color. In fact, in the Denver area Google's "Satellite" images are identical to TerraServer's images. Here's an example
  53. Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu by rpresser · · Score: 2, Informative

    The real problem with both Google Maps and MapQuest is the underlying data. Both get their street data (at least in large part) from the same company: TeleAtlas.

    This is the company that still hasn't picked up on the fact that many roads near here were renumbered four years ago to meet 911 law requirements. My company's official postal address is 2075 High Hill Rd., but TeleAtlas still thinks the only valid block number for this road is 200-299.

  54. What the hell... by JPickard · · Score: 1

    does 'amueltc' mean?!

    1. Re:What the hell... by sreid · · Score: 1

      i would bet it the guy's name

  55. This is what I get: by ImaLamer · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Google Maps team recently noticed your Google Maps tile "stitcher"
    to see developers interested in our products and we commend you on the
    service. That said, we would appreciate it if you voluntarily remove
    your service and stop using Google Maps on your web site. The service
    violates the Maps Terms of Service available at
    http://www.google.com/help/terms_local.html, and jeopardizes our
    ability to make Google Maps available to the public because it
    encourages non-personal use of Google Maps.

    If you have any questions or concerns, or if we have contacted the
    wrong people, please feel free to contact me directly. Otherwise,
    amueltc please let us know as soon as possible when the service has been
    removed.

    Thanks,

    Bret Taylor
    Product Manager, Google Maps

    1. Re:This is what I get: by Facekhan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Notice a big difference between a typical Cease and Desist letter often written in a very threatening manner by a lawyer who figures his bogus claims won't be checked by the recipient and a polite please stop because you are going to ruin the service for others letter from the project manager.

    2. Re:This is what I get: by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I find it somewhat ironic that a company that makes a significant portion of it's revenue by deep-linking to sites is sending takedown notices to people who deep-link their site.

    3. Re:This is what I get: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so? both get the point across. just because google is doing it nicely doesn't mean anything the other lawyer doesn't. this whole thing about making google holier-than-thou is stupid and annoying.

      ac because of moderation.

    4. Re:This is what I get: by Dwonis · · Score: 1

      Companies often avoid having their programmers interact with the general public. It might be a good idea to avoid having their lawyers interact with the general public, for the same reasons.

    5. Re:This is what I get: by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Notice a big difference between a typical Cease and Desist letter often written in a very threatening manner by a lawyer who figures his bogus claims won't be checked by the recipient and a polite please stop because you are going to ruin the service for others letter from the project manager.
      If Google had written a 'you are going to ruin the service for others' note, you'd have a point. But they didn't. They wrote a letter no different from dozens of others that have been discussed on Slashdot.

      But the Slashdot hivemind is incapable of holding Google to the same standards that they do Microsoft or any other corporation.

    6. Re:This is what I get: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure Google will be happy to delist you if you email them.

    7. Re:This is what I get: by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I find it somewhat ironic that a company that makes a significant portion of
      > it's revenue by deep-linking to sites is sending takedown notices to people who
      > deep-link their site.

      It's really no more ironic than a cafe that makes money from selling food for consumption on the premises stopping you from eating food (bought elsewhere) on the premises.

    8. Re:This is what I get: by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      There is a difference. Ads deep linked on their site are paid for by companies hoping to make money from traffic, and are indorsed by google. Peeple downloading more map content than they need for the intended service to make desktop backgrounds could be seen as a DDoS on google map servers.

    9. Re:This is what I get: by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      well, that's what you get when you build a service of selling advertisements on other peoples content...

      Can't really blame other people when they then turn around and do the same to you.

    10. Re:This is what I get: by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      I've never known Google to force ads onto sites. In fact, I begged to sign up for AdSense.

    11. Re:This is what I get: by Facekhan · · Score: 1

      Microsoft sued a college student because he was not allowed to return Windows XP and sold it on Ebay. The student won a favorable settlement after filing his own motions and making it very clear that Microsoft's lawyers did not even review the paperwork before filing a lawsuit as many of their claims did not even apply to him.

      The difference that I am pointing out is that many companies just go nuclear on anyone and everyone or threaten it without even reviewing their own complaint.

    12. Re:This is what I get: by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      and I'm being begged to reactivate my account :)

      I meant the search engine, not the ad channel.

  56. Hope.... by t0ny747 · · Score: 0

    I hope they let us keep hacking it. Or at least give us a way to send an xml file to it and in return they can display ads... I don't know but this is one of those good things that I never want to see go away. I've been working on a php script that turns netstumbler summery files to an xml file that google maps likes.

    --
    Taco?
  57. server side vs. client side... by bagofcrap · · Score: 2, Interesting

    so hosting a site could be a problem, but how about something like greasemonkey on firefox to do it locally? would that get around the restriction?

    1. Re:server side vs. client side... by netcrusher88 · · Score: 1

      It could be done...

      However, Javascript is nowhere near as adept at parsing html and stitching imagery together as Python. In fact, Javascript can't stitch imagery together. A greasemonkey port actually would not work anywhere near the same. Parse the HTML and figure out how to put the images together, yes. Getting the images and putting them together, now that's a different story...

      --
      There's an old saying that says pretty much whatever you want it to.
  58. Apparently the *only* person in the country... by unicorn · · Score: 1

    that doesn't watch pro sports, at least once in a blue moon.

    Prefaced onto the beginning of EVERY sports telecast, is a note that the broadcast is owned by the league, and the network. And that rebroadcast, etc, is strictly prohibited w/o permission from the before mentioned entities.

    --
    "Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
  59. So was the RIAA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...before they started hiring lawyers.

    It may be a shame to shut down Google Maps offshoots, but that has to be the nicest take-down note I've ever seen; it's polite, friendly and reasonable.

    I have a copy (no I'm not going to get it /.'d) of a letter from when I was in college and hosting MP3's on an anonymous FTP for IRC users. This was in November of 1997.

    The request was from someone claiming to be part of a marketing department for one of the big labels (and had a dual role in the RIAA I guess, since that was the return address) and they were required to notify FTP server owners of MP3s for various artists.

    I was asked politely to take them off and I did.

    A few weeks later I was given a cease and desist when I threw twice as many new MP3s on, but none of the originals that upset them. The first argument was that I was distributing music written by "X, Y, and Z artists". The second argument that was made was that the MP3 encoding format was illegal, and that my server itself must be shut down.

    Had I known at the time that the MP3 format itself was not illegal, I might have fought them on it. After all, I was just a college student, and I figure being a martyr for what was essentially an encoding format would have given me enough fame to get hired later on.

    But, stupid as I was, I instead got a degree and now work, making just over 30K US per year. I'm pathetic. I missed out on the dot-com boom, and despite my experience in network administration and web development (PHP/Apache/MySQL), I'm a nobody.

    I encourage those of you who think that it is ridiculous to stand up for your rights because of "losing everything you own" to really look at what you own and who you plan to be. Cause I can tell you right now, a male twenty-something college student with virtually nothing of value and good grades is immortal against demonization. Judges would have to be insane to agree that it is worth destroying the life of an educated youngster to benefit a conglomerate of individuals seeking to commercialize art.

    I want be the first young man to have his life utterly destroyed by the RIAA or MPAA. And I've been out there, waiting for the cease and desist again ever since. I want to be able to write a book about it, and capitalize on a few industries deceit and bullying. I just can't wait.

  60. Do Some Evil by urdine · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "It may be a shame to shut down Google Maps offshoots, but that has to be the nicest take-down note I've ever seen."
    Instead of "Do no evil" maybe the motto should be "Do evil with a smile"? These guys are no different than any other company. It may not have been their intention when they started, and the people at Google may not be evil, but by the very nature of being a publicly-owned company they have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to "protect their interests" which ultimately means stopping outside innovation like this. It's a shame, but that's what happens when $300 million isn't enough...
    1. Re:Do Some Evil by maxume · · Score: 1

      Gmerge isn't especially innovative. Sure it is cool, and provides pretty desirable output, but how hard is stiching images together? Google maps happens to do a very similar thing...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  61. Is this English ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Google Maps team recently noticed your Google Maps tile "stitcher" to see developers interested in our products and we commend you on the service.

    I'm not a native English speaker, but the above sentence does not make any sense to me. If this is correct English, what are they saying ?
    1. Re:Is this English ? by rkww · · Score: 1
      No it's not correct, it looks like there are a few words missing:
      The Google Maps team recently noticed your Google Maps tile "stitcher". [We are pleased] to see developers interested in our products and we commend you on the service.
    2. Re:Is this English ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez i'm so sorry... It was my fault, a really bad cut paste. The missing sentence:

      / wallpaper maker at http://gmerge.2ni.net/. Google is always happy

      entire message:

      gmerge folks,

      The Google Maps team recently noticed your Google Maps tile "stitcher" / wallpaper maker at http://gmerge.2ni.net/. Google is always happy to see developers interested in our products and we commend you on the service. That said, we would appreciate it if you voluntarily remove your service and stop using Google Maps on your web site. The service violates the Maps Terms of Service available at http://www.google.com/help/terms_local.html, and jeopardizes our ability to make Google Maps available to the public because it encourages non-personal use of Google Maps.

      If you have any questions or concerns, or if we have contacted the wrong people, please feel free to contact me directly. Otherwise, please let us know as soon as possible when the service has been
      removed.

      Thanks,
      Bret Taylor
      Product Manager, Google Maps

    3. Re:Is this English ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bleh, its no worse than the baffling sentence fragment that passes for the headline to this slashdot story.

  62. Would said letter start somthing like by visgoth · · Score: 4, Funny

    d00d u r n trbl...

    --
    My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    1. Re:Would said letter start somthing like by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      forget leetspeak...

      "Gentlemen, make your time."

    2. Re:Would said letter start somthing like by syynnapse · · Score: 1

      all your code are belong to us. your website have no chance to survive major time.

      it's you!

      --

      System.out.println(syynnapse.getSig());

  63. Superious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a perfectly cremulent word!

    1. Re:Superious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Superious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mike Tyson? Is that you?

  64. Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you talking about? I would think the population of 563,374 (according to the 2000 Census), not to mention the sheer size of the city would qualify it as a "major" city.

    How about you do some research before you decide to speak, oh wait, this is /., where any idiot can speak his mind.

  65. Enforcing Personal Use by LordMyren · · Score: 1

    With web services becoming all the rage, what are Best Practices for enforcing personal use? If you're releasing source, what manners are there to keep someone from using your script for abuse?

    Frankly I think the obligation lies in the hand of the service provider and the person using your code. The whole point of web services is to be able to extend and automate other people's systems. We're simply tool providers, building new systems. If I build a pencil and john goes out and commits triple homicide with my pencil its a shame, yes, but its also not my fault. Why is the internet home of the great double standard; as soon as a tool is easy to use it suddenly becomes the makers problem? As long as our systems designed to promote violations of TOS, its frankly not our problem.

    Most every TOS says "for personal use only", google's qualm was that this script makes it easy to circumvent that. These claims are rediculous, even if theres a number of other violations.

    -Myren

    1. Re:Enforcing Personal Use by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I find that "personal use only" or even "non-commercial use only" clauses are self-destructive at best anyway, under any circumstances.

      I understand that the use of information gleaned from copyrighted sources require that extra applications of that information be done under "fair-use" provisions of copyright law... and Google is under some incredible pressure to demonstrate that it doesn't violate copyright law under these circumstances.

      Even with this knowlege of copyright law, I simply can't imagine anybody who will stop using something "for personal use". What about people who use similar data in a professional environment? How can you possibly stop somebody from using it in that manner? If you make a map with the data using the google software, what is the legal rationale behind preventing you from publishing that "original map" in your local newspaper? Or stopping the newspaper itself from publishing on its own?

      I would argue that the TOS is unenfocable, at least to the extent that they have put in restrictions that simply make a "service" like this more of a toy than anything that you can substantively do something with. And a good example on how lawyers are really screwing up computer professionals trying to let their imaginations free.

  66. Re:There should be a new /. section called 'google by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Why don't you submit a FEATURE REQUEST for it? That's what they're for, after all :)

  67. Where copyright legislation in America will end u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    April 22, 2007

    Sender Information:
    Rapacious, Plunder, Voracious and Greed
    for SuperMajorCorporation, LLC
    1001 SuperMajorAvenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20036 USA

    Sent via: email
    Re: Property Rights - Notice and Takedown request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512(c)(3)

    We are legal counsel for and write on behalf of The SuperMajorCorporation, LLC. We have recently learned that you are violating copyrights by posting on your site certain content copyrighted by the SuperMajorCorporation, LLC.

    The content you created travels to other users over an "internet backbone"© and by act of "Congress"© any such transfer automatically registers the content as copyrighted to the corporation owning that "internet backbone"©. (This new addition to "The Law"© was just enacted by the "Congress"© this year as a rider to the 2007 budget)

    Since SuperMajorCorporation LLC now owns the copyright to this content, which has been transferred to our "pay per view" servers; pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), we are writing to provide you notice of your illegal distribution activities and copyright infringement. Acting as an agent on behalf of SuperMajorCorporation LLC, we have a good faith belief that the use of SuperMajorCorporation LLC's copyrighted material in this manner is not authorized by us, our agent, or the law.

    Your organization's conduct constitutes willful copyright infringement and unfair competition and is damaging SuperMajorCorporation LLC, our customers and our advertisers.

    SuperMajorCorporation LLC hereby asks that you remove all content and materials from your web site. We insist that you confirm you have ceased all acts of infringement and destroyed all infringing materials within 5 days' of your receipt of this letter.

    We trust that you understand SuperMajorCorporation LLC's concern over the infringement of their rights and that you will fully cooperate with us and confirm your compliance with our requests within 5 days' of your receipt of this letter.

    The foregoing is without waiver of any and all rights of SuperMajorCorporation LLC, all of which are expressly reserved herein.

    I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is accurate, that SuperMajorCorporation LLC are the intellectual property (copyright) owners of our material and that I am authorized to act on behalf of SuperMajorCorporation LLC.

    Very truly yours,
    Rapacious, Plunder, Voracious and Greed
    for SuperMajorCorporation, LLC
    1001 SuperMajorAvenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20036 USA

  68. I for one, welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    our newest slashdot cliché :)

    (cliché overlords are on their way, too)

  69. Caches purged -- get it here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, since all of those caches seem to have disappeared (!), get it from the Google cache (you'll have to strip off the header from the HTML, of course):

    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:fWrAVd4XgzUJ: gmerge.2ni.net/gmerge.py+%2Bgmerge.py+%2Bmap&hl=en &client=safari

  70. MOD PARENT INFORMATIVE by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Who the heck posted this "insightful"? An insight is an observation, but we're getting USEFUL INFORMATION here.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT INFORMATIVE by oneiron · · Score: 1

      The parent insightfully decided that it was necessary to defend the merits of google's actions. After this insightful decision, the parent provided a wealth of informative information. Mod it however you want. In many cases either moderation fits the bill. I think this is one of them.

  71. They really have no choice by netsavior · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They use GDT/TeleAtlas Data and guess what, they don't have the right to allow people to make derivitave works of TeleAtlas's work. I guess they could wait till Teleatlas sued them and the offending sites, but they probably don't want to lose their data license. This would be kind of like if you recorded a radio show that played a song (which they licensed the ability to play) then when you were selling or giving away copys on your website they asked you to stop.

  72. Re:There should be a new /. section called 'google by Voxus · · Score: 1

    Yes. Yes, there should.

  73. A more open content provider: USGS (links++) by expro · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is ludicrous to claim that Google invested that much in the original content, since everyone just gets it from US Geological Survey.

    So, go to the National Atlas and download and use to your heart's content. If that is not good enough, then go download all the data you can imagine. Still not enough, you can access all the layers via web services that comply with specifications published by the Open Geospatial Consortium at run time from your own web pages.

    Now, write your congressmen and tell them how you appreciate that they made all this available to you, the citizen, for free, instead of spending all that tax money only to add a fee that makes it prohibitive for all but corporations who can be gatekeepers to keep you out. And hope that this doesn't become another casulty of Iraq budgets.

    While you are at it, start a USGS support mailing list and an open source project to keep this sort of alive.

    1. Re:A more open content provider: USGS (links++) by chrisd · · Score: 3, Informative

      While we do get some data from government sources, there are a lot of images there that come from private companies who pay to have pilots takes pictures from cameras mounted on planes.

      --
      Co-Editor, Open Sources
      Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
    2. Re:A more open content provider: USGS (links++) by mikeplokta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The USGS has street-level maps of the UK? URL please -- this will be very useful.

      Remember that Google Maps doesn't just cover the US.

    3. Re:A more open content provider: USGS (links++) by orn · · Score: 1

      Watch out for the NOAA too.

      Our favorite Pennsylvanian elected official, Rick Santorum, wants to make basic weather information unavailable to the public - so companies in his state can profit off our tax dollars. Not a first, but definitely a fist.

      Don't forget, Santorum is up for re-election in 2006. If you don't work for a weather company, tell all your Pennsylvanian friends to vote against this idiot.

      R

      --
      1. 2.
    4. Re:A more open content provider: USGS (links++) by webzooey · · Score: 1

      Finally, someone mentions the work of the USGS and the Open Geospatial Consortium, who have been on top of open spatial data and sharing standards for decades. Maybe some of them will finally get invited to the O'Reilly Where 2.0 conference, too. Getting back on topic... In addition to participating in an open source geospatial project, we should also work to make sure public geospatial resources don't disappear from the public domain, as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) wants them to: http://www.urisa.org/Board_Initiatives/NGA.htm Comments due by June 30.

    5. Re:A more open content provider: USGS (links++) by ghoti221 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the USGS is very unlikely to have data on Canada outside of 10-15 miles of the border. (8-)

      JGH

      --
      "The competent programmer...approaches the programming task in full humility. -- Edsger Dijkstra
    6. Re:A more open content provider: USGS (links++) by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Well, I explored the nationalatlas.gov site a bit, slowly getting more and more frustrated with not being able to get any maps that showed what I was looking for.

      Finally I stumbled across the comment:

      For example, within the National Atlas Map Maker, we do not include detailed street maps. That is because the intent of an atlas that covers the whole Nation is to use generalized maps that portray America's broad conditions, patterns, and trends.

      That explains the problem. If you're after patterns and trends, it's a good site. If you're after actual maps, it's not what you want at all.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  74. Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu by pi42 · · Score: 1

    Google Maps has also double-crossed me before. My friends and I were going out to dinner and it showed our destination as being on the wrong side of an intersection. We drove back and forth along the road where Google Maps showed it would be at least 5 times before we gave up and asked a local.

    It was a huge drag. I really love the Google Maps interface but it pays to cross check with another service if your time is important.

  75. google seismo by Nick+Mitchell · · Score: 1

    earthquake!!

  76. Actually, yes by sterno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have to say that sending a polite, could you not do this, e-mail is very cool of google. For a time, I ran a radio station off of my server. Not many people listened to it, but anyhow, I got a letter from ASCAP asking me to not do it.

    There's letter was much more legalese ridden, etc, ultimately, they had the decency to send me a warning notice before they sicked a pack of lawyers onto me. After it was clear to me that they were serious about it, I stopped.

    If I was swapping songs and the RIAA sent me a letter saying, "hey could you please stop?", I probably would. Instead, they'd probably just sue me, and charge me a lot of money I don't have.

    So yeah, there's something to be said for how you say things.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Actually, yes by anhdres · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The difference is that the RIAA strategy doesn't rely on stopping filesharing one by one, it relies on fear. Nobody would stop doing it until they receive the "please stop" letter. I'm sure that number is way bigger than the ammount of users the Fasttrack network lost in the US because of fear of being sued for thousands of dollars.

    2. Re:Actually, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comparing apples to oranges.

      ASCAP almost certainly sent you whats known affectionately as a "pay or play" notice. Ideal for informing people that the activitys their conducting are subject to agreements and costs that they may not have known about. So pay the fees to continue, or stop before we sue.

      Sharing music files is a copyright infringement. Unless you've been living in a cave high up in the Himalyans and can prove a recent serious head injury, its pretty certain that your actions were intended to harm the rights holders. RIAA sues because the balance of probabilitys is that you don't have a defense.

      Why would RIAA be nice to whats about to become roadkill? ;-)'s

  77. Google maps for Aus is non-existant by the_enigma_1983 · · Score: 1

    Be glad you can even see some streets, we're just a blob of green and brown to Google Maps

  78. Perfectly reasonable by logicnazi · · Score: 1

    Look this is a perfectly reasonable response. Suppose someone started using your personal webserver to constantly test their bandwidth, i.e., put up a page which invited people to measure the speed they could download your entire site.

    Also it doesn't look like any of the other sites are in trouble. If you read the notice they asked them to take it down because it encourages non-personal use of google maps. Basically I take that to mean it encouraged people to put it in the background rather than actively using it. Alot like the example with the webpage. I mean how would you feel if people started using your webpage as a background and made you go over yout transfer quota.

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

  79. Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh downtown is terrible to figure out.

  80. Yep, they are doing evil by Snaller · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...but when did they jump the shark - with google groups 2 I suppose.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  81. TV on the Internet by oliphaunt · · Score: 1

    Fox can't dictate how you watch television. But try recording their lineup, stripping the commercials, and putting them on the Internet

    Don't mind if I do!

    --




    Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
  82. But do any of them use the Peters projection? by Snaller · · Score: 1

    I think not.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  83. Mod Up. by fbartho · · Score: 1

    Thanks! I only hear about the coolest utils on slashdot after they've been taken down...

    Of course while posting this I determined that I sadly get an access error while running the exe :(

    --
    Gravity Sucks
  84. Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not googles fault your retarded.

  85. Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu by iabervon · · Score: 1

    The main advantage of Google Maps over MapQuest is that you can actually look over the route and get a reasonable idea of the area you'll be going through. Then, when you get diverted, you have a chance of getting back on track. You also have a better chance of recognizing the turns after looking at how the cross-streets are arranged.

  86. Google's cache of http://gmerge.2ni.net/gmerge.py by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:fWrAVd4XgzUJ: gmerge.2ni.net/gmerge.py+gmerge.py&hl=en&start=1

    This is G o o g l e's cache of http://gmerge.2ni.net/gmerge.py as retrieved on May 29, 2005 13:32:53 GMT.
    G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
    The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
    This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
    To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:fWrAVd4XgzUJ: gmerge.2ni.net/gmerge.py+gmerge.py&hl=en&start=1

  87. Uh... by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

    Missing the point I see! Well done.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  88. Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu by adpowers · · Score: 1

    Be sure to report errors. I found an error in a listing in Seattle, e-mailed them, and it was fixed a few weeks later. It was too late for me, it already caused me to lose time, but it might help someone in the future.

  89. Nah by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They don't look square, they look as though it's a perspective drawing, which a map isn't supposed to be. Check out a similar Yahoo Map for comparison. If you put a protractor down on a printout of that map, you'd see 90 degree angles (more or less, I suspect). Not so on the Google version.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  90. Another shut down... by DonWilson · · Score: 1

    Yet another Gmail user-created service shut down: http://isnoop.net/gmail/

  91. It's all in the approach by darrienj · · Score: 1

    I think there's such a positive reaction to Google's request as we're not used to getting such thing with a lubricant, and a pretty high quality fragrent one at that. Wait until somebody takes a stand against Google somehow, sorta like the AOL/MSN Inop wars.

  92. the other hacks wont be taken down by Odocoileus · · Score: 1

    The terms of service section that was violated was the photographic imagery section, they don't seem to mind the other stuff, just don't molest the pictures.

    --
    ...
  93. NASA World Wind by fourtyfive · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/ I just wanted to let people know that the latest CVS of NASA World wind has a plugin engine that allows people to do the same thing (Their is even a plugin already made to do it!)

  94. So this is how Google's 'No Evil' policy dies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    to thunderous applause.

  95. Yep, necessary by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I don't think there is anything wrong for a listed company to protect its interest, control its IPs and maximize its profit, but the fanboy twist is totally unnecessary.

    It's very necessary. Consider:

    Things google could have done: 1) sued. 2) threatened to sue until you settled for $3000 (yeah, I'm talking to you DirecTV!). 3) Claimed rights they don't actually have 4) contacted his ISP and gotten him shut down.

    Things google actually did: 1) asked him respectfully and nicely to stop. 2) provided a legitimate reason for the same.

    I've never seen a C&D that friendly. Style makes a big difference in things like that, and shows that google "gets it" and isn't throwing their weight around needlessly.

    1. Re:Yep, necessary by Momoru · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is very common...most companies do not come right out with lawsuits, I used a BMW logo on my site once and BMW sent a notice asking if I could remove it because it violated yadda yadda. I also knew of a bar that was using a Jimmy Buffet trademark, and got a similarly nice letter first. This is the way you are supposed to approach violations...warn the person first, friendly lawyer notice second, angry lawyer notice third, in court finally. Most companies realize you get more bees with honey, but when people continue to violate you can bet your ass that an angry lawyer letter will follow.

  96. Paging the fanboys... by mattgreen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AOL Instant Messenger's Terms of Use forbid use of third party clients from connecting to the network. How come whenever AOL tries to lock out third party clients it is evil, but when Google does it, it's okay? Both are terms of service violations.

    Grandparent hit it head on: enough fawning over Google.

    1. Re:Paging the fanboys... by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google's argument would be that when you access Google Maps you are accepting their terms of use, which are incorporated by means of the link at the bottom of each page. This is probably correct, but their argument would be stronger if you had to view the terms and click on an "I accept these terms" button before you accessed the website.

      If you use a third party client to connect to the AOL IM network, on the other hand, you're not seeing any of AOL's terms of use - so how can you be bound by them? As a legal matter, it's fairly clear that you're not. This is why AOL tries to block third party clients technically rather than legally.

    2. Re:Paging the fanboys... by deke_2503 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. You agree to the terms of service when you sign up for an AIM/AOL account. It is pretty clear about how you may not use third-party clients. Unfortunately for AOL, blocking such clients would 1) reduce their users by an enormous amount, and 2) be practically impossible.

      Realistically, AOL needs/wants its AIM users a lot more than its users need/want it. If AIM wasn't free, or you couldn't use it the way you want, there are plenty of alternatives. I have a jabber account which I'm always signed on with, but nobody uses it to communicate with me. So I also use AIM, but I would have no problem dropping AIM if they started charging or blocking my client.

      And as far as AOL attempting to block third-party clients, I don't really believe it. I think instead, they are merely taking care of issues in their client/servers or adding functionality. That sometimes happens to break other clients--oh well, that's not their concern. If they really wanted to, I'm sure they could do a much better job as well as manage to do it more than twice a year or so.

  97. g666gle by ocularDeathRay · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think google is replacing microsoft as the source of all evil in the world.

    --
    Obama is a twitter sock puppet
  98. Where are my mod points? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

    That's one of the most insightful comments on the whole page!

    Incidentally, has anyone noticed how much power Google is gathering? They're becoming a monopoly, just like Microsoft. That's why I don't use Google anymore.

    Well, I do, but only when I can't find what I'm looking for elsewhere (and that's not often).

    --

    The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    1. Re:Where are my mod points? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Incidentally, has anyone noticed how much power Google is gathering? They're becoming a monopoly, just like Microsoft."

      When they stop being useful, we will stop using them.

  99. It is most gratifying... by neonsignal · · Score: 1

    that your enthusiasm for our map service continues unabated, and so we would like to assure you that the IRC worms currently converging with your site are part of a special service we extend to all of our most enthusiastic clients, and the fully armed virus payloads are of course merely a courtesy detail.

    (with apologies to the late Douglas Adams)

  100. big boat.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  101. Well, thanks for that, NOT by expro · · Score: 1

    Why would I use that data, when attempting to make a derived product? A real service would be at least to keep seperate what could be reused from what cannot. Why would I mix in proprietary data when it makes the whole product unusable to me. As a person involved in open source, I would think you would understand that. This is not the only project where Google "innovates" by making a totally proprietary product from data which should have been mostly open.

  102. Re:There should be a new /. section called 'google by gfreeman · · Score: 1

    There should be a new /. section called 'google'..

    There is.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  103. Ding ding ding! by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  104. What you're not getting by RomulusNR · · Score: 1

    is that the Tile Stitcher Wallpaper pulled in the Google images, and created new images from them by putting them together. None of the real Google Maps hacks do that; they simply reuse the regular Google Maps interface with overlaid enhancements.

    --
    Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
  105. Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu by generic-man · · Score: 1

    Don't worry. I'm sure they just went with TeleAtlas during the beta period, and I've heard from several blogs that TrackBacked each other that Google is planning a better map system roll-out prior to general availability release.

    --
    For more information, click here.
  106. Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idiot drivers downtown are always the ones who rarely or never drive there. In this case that would be you. The people who often drive downtown know what they are doing and how it is supposed to work so don't cause trouble for everyone else.

  107. Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu by zero_offset · · Score: 1

    There are 428 cities with more than a million people, and 59 with more than five million. A mere half-million isn't even worth listing; there are thousands.

    http://www.citypopulation.de/World.html

    --

    Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005