NYC & SF iPod Subway Map Controversy

scruffy323 writes "NYC and San Francisco are claiming copyright violations for freely distributed subway maps." From the Wired piece: "More than 9,000 people downloaded the map, which was viewable on either an iPod or an iPod nano, before Bright received a Sept. 14 letter from Lester Freundlich, a senior associate counsel at New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority, saying that Bright had infringed the MTA's copyright and that he needed a license to post the map and to authorize others to download it."

Comments

Technically, they're right

[mrjb]

Technically the subway co. of NY city are right. It *is* copyright infringement and the map *was* distributed without their permission.

That said, in practice the NYC subway co. already made the map available to the general public, so it's not like there are any losses or damages as a result of this. In fact making the map available on IPod might actually increase the number of subway users. This rises the question, "what's the problem?" Conclusion: NYC subway co., get a life.

Re:Technically, they're right

[oncehour]

Once again, it's a case of corporations trying to protect the status quo, more than it is of an actual individual problem occuring with this instance. To not kneejerk at this instance would be to have it thrown into their face if someone else stole their intellectual property. Additionally, if the maps were released to a widespread audience freely for a significant amount of time, any hope at commercial opportunities for using the map would have pretty well been destroyed. It may not be a likely scenario, but an example of the logic that could have lead to this.

Personally, I believe maps should have their own subsection within Intellectual Property laws. People do need an incentive to make them generally, but with aerial photographs, this is getting easier and easier as time goes on. Blueprinted building and track ways makes this even more trivial, and once you get down to it, a map is just a graphical representation of the factual geography of a location. I believe the subway company could do better to just pick up a few advertising contracts, brand the maps with advertising, and release under the Creative Commons.

However, based on the current corporate mindset around adapting to technology and kneejerk reactions to the words "file-sharing" this sort of idea is probably long off.

Re:Technically, they're right

[Fnkmaster]

While this is all nice, the MTA isn't a corporation in the usual sense at all. It is a city government agency, subsidized and funded by the city of New York. This map was already created with taxpayer dollars. City agencies have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of their city, not to shareholders, and aim to make profits only to the extent that they should avoid inflicting unnecessary taxes on their citizens through waste or inefficiency.

This doesn't make any sense because making the map available to people in another format is a public good being performed by a private citizen. The MTA is actually hurting citizens of New York by imposing this undue burden on this fellow. There is really no defense for such behavior.

I grew up in NYC

[Vengeance]

Subway maps were very difficult to get. Technically they were free and available, but you had to be damned lucky to find a token booth clerk who actually had any in the booth.

A downloadable map makes a world of sense, and frankly I cannot understand just WHAT about a subway system map needs copyright protection? Is there some subway map counterfeiting operation out there? Does the system stand to lose ridership and money as a consequence of people being able to find their way around?

In summary, I consider this lawsuit to be insane and unnecessary. Noone but the lawyers will benefi.. Oh, yes, that's right.

A taxpayer funded service

[plnrtrvlr]

Here's where I wish I had mod points... always seem to have them when I can't find anything to mod, never when I want to. You're probably closer to the truth than you know on this. It would seem that the cities in question would applaud something like this: someone else helping them to distribute a map that normally costs them money to distibute themselves. Hoever, if you "follow the money" it's probably the printer/publisher of the subway maps that is behind the complaint. Those people aren't in the least bit interested in providing a service to the people who use the subway, they just wnt to charge the city as much money as they can. A few phone calls to the right people and next thing you know we have another stupid copyright infringement issue. This isn't so much an issue with copyright law as it is an issue to take up with the city council: they need to be pressured to make this into a freely distributable service since the taxpayers ultimately pay for it anyways.

Re:Farewell, free country!

[aussie_a]

Once upon a time US was a FREE country

What the fuck are you talking about? Or are you just babbling the slashdot group think to get your ass modded up? (+1 Insightful as of posting this, so he aint being very successful).

America had the ability for Congress to enact copyright law in it's Constitution. You know, the piece of paper that says what America can and can't do. It was completed in 1787, 11 years after the United States of America was first formed (sorta. See here for more details.) It took effect two years later. This power was first exercised in 1790, only 1 year after the Constitution was placed into effect. Here's a small quote from this article which you might find enlightening. Emphasis mine:

The Act secured an author the exclusive right to publish and vend "maps, charts and books"

Now while the term limit has been increased dramatically, that isn't the issue here (we're not talking about maps that are over 14 years old are we?). So don't give me that bullshit about this being another example of copyright "thing" getting worse and worse. Unless you were talking about the US being a free country before 1790 of course.

Re:Feh

[jmichaelg]

The problem is that the material is copyrighted at all. The map is public information created by a public agency for public dissemination. This case is an example of public agencies wasting public resources.

The only beneficiary of copyright in this instance is some petty bureaucrat who can claim his/her job is important to the public weal. The public "servant's" next step will be to ask for an increase in funding so he can hire his/her wife/husband/son/daughter/nephew/... to reformat the maps to meet this new "public demand" for public information.

I feh on your feh and whomever ordered the cease and desist to be written in the first place.

Re:Feh

[afidel]

No, they merely shift the tax burden from one place to another. Artificially locking public information up so that it can be resold by a private entity is just wrong. It's like when governments spend huge amounts of money to make GIS maps and then only provide them under expensive licenses, you've already paid to have the data collected and consolidated, why should you be double taxed if you actually want to access the information? Just because there are people with the means to buy the information under expensive licenses does not mean that the government should make it standard practice to double tax anyone who wants to actually use the output of the information retrieval and consolidation process that they have already paid for. Down that path lies much less transparant government, which is never a good thing.