Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New York MTA Asserts Copyright Over Schedule

Posted by timothy on from the might-be-a-bargain-if-they-always-kept-the-schedule dept.

Presto Vivace writes "Greater Greater Washington reports that 'The New York Metropolitan Transit Authority's lawyers are going after a local blogger, and attempting to block an iPhone application showing Metro-North railroad schedules. The blog StationStops writes about Metro-North Commuter Railroad service north of New York City, and often criticizes its operations. Its creator, Chris Schoenfeld, also created an iPhone application to give Metro-North riders schedule information. Now the MTA is insisting he pay them to license the data, and at one point even accused the site of pretending to be an official MTA site.' I can't believe that this the MTA's actions are going to go over well with the public."

13 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. This is will never fly in the courts by Cutie+Pi · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is significant precedent in copyright law that lists of facts or data cannot be copyrighted.

    See, e.g. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
    Link

    1. Re:This is will never fly in the courts by Translation+Error · · Score: 2, Informative

      I imagine they believe it's in their own best interest to create and sell an iPhone application themselves or (more likely) somehow get a cut from his.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    2. Re:This is will never fly in the courts by Jurily · · Score: 3, Informative

      What happens when he has a typo or transcribes a column wrong and borks an entire train? Customers get angry because they miss expected connections and blame MTA not Schoenfeld.

      This is bullshit. When they arrive at the station and their train is not there, usually they'll ask someone working there or start to complain to someone working there, at which point they'll get informed about the facts of life.

      The problem is, a third party service is required to spread the information. In the UK, there are at least 10 different websites, where you can search, book and print anything you could possibly need (including a bus service or a taxi at the destination), and if you're on the move already, you can just send an SMS, and they'll text you back with the information you need.

    3. Re:This is will never fly in the courts by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not on grounds of inelligibility for copyright as an entity that this will be thrown out (you're right about that, the gov can hold copyright), it's on the grounds that facts cannot be copyrighted. They may have a case for the composition of the schedule, but as far as the dates, times, and train numbers, they've got nothing. So unless he's doing a scan-paste operation to get the schedules on his app (which I can't imagine, but it's possible), he's in the clear. They're just trying to bully him.

      If I were him I'd counter-sue on the basis of a frivolous lawsuit and harassment, and seek damages matching any lawyer fees and lost income due to the trial.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    4. Re:This is will never fly in the courts by Fnord · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're referring to the subway, not Metro North, then no, there isn't a schedule. Trains run every 8 minutes. If they were to try and make a schedule with 8 minute intervals, any delays (which are inevitable, its a huge system) would quickly throw that out of what completely. Instead of late trains waiting for the next 8 minute interval, they just leave as soon as they can. New Yorkers know that if you miss a train, the next one isn't that far off.

      If you are talking about Metro North like they were in the article, then you weren't looking hard enough. Grand Central has big lit up boards with all the schedules, and pampheletes all over the place. Those trains run once an hour. There a schedule is necessary. With the subway, not so much.

    5. Re:This is will never fly in the courts by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Informative

      Another reason these schedules are not copyrightable is because the MTA is owned by the NY government, and the NY government is owned/funded by the People, therefore the schedules belong to the citizens of New York State. They are free to copy the schedules as often as they desire, especially since they already paid for them via taxation.

      This is just yet another case of government forgetting why it exists - to serve us.

      All legitimate power flows from the bottom, up, and politicians which forget this need to be fired & replaced.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:This is will never fly in the courts by badasscat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Another reason these schedules are not copyrightable is because the MTA is owned by the NY government, and the NY government is owned/funded by the People, therefore the schedules belong to the citizens of New York State.

      Authorities are not "owned" by the NY government. This is one of the big issues with authorities in New York - they were invented precisely because they are independent of state government (they're designed as a workaround for various inconvenient state laws). The state has no direct control over the MTA or any other authority, and the authority's finances are intentionally kept separate. For all intents and purposes, authorities are simply very large non-profit organizations that have been granted broad powers by the state to provide public services, and have governing boards comprised of state and local officials, among others.

      Some authorities are actually completely financially independent; they're not subsidized at all. The MTA is not in that category, but it does make more of its own money than any other transit system in the world. Its subsidy is relatively small in percentage terms, and it is not direct government funding, like an agency. It's an agreement that needs to be negotiated and renewed every few years.

      I'm not disagreeing that this stuff can't be copyrighted, I'm just saying it's not for the reason you provided. There's no direct link between any NY authority and the taxpayer. There are indirect links, but it's not an unbroken chain between authority and taxpayer.

  2. I thought this was resolved LONG ago by erroneus · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can't copyright "facts." There have been debates and legal wrangling over phone books, schedules and sports statistics over the past 20 years or more to my recollection and every time, the courts decided that "facts" cannot be copyrighted -- only the organization, layout and presentation of the facts can be. All these other things like the blogs and software apps are at the VERY LEAST "derivative works" if anything at all related to the ownership of the data offered up through their original "official" sources.

    And if facts ever become a form of intellectual property, you can pretty much kiss ALL human advancement goodbye. Imagine a world where facts and history are no longer available because some jackass corporation decided not to publish because it's not profitable enough.

    1. Re:I thought this was resolved LONG ago by erroneus · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should really think your argument through. Yes, history books are copyrighted, but the facts they verbalize are not. You or anyone else are able to use the information as reference with which you may create your own history book. Once again, it is the fact that can be copied, not the book.

      As for video game data? I would have to say it depends on the data. If it were scores or other statistical data, I would say "no" it's not copyrightable. On the other hand, if the data in a game is an intrinsic part of the game, then it may be copyrightable.

      But then again, I have a pretty unconventional sensibility when it comes to what I opine should be copyrightable. In my view, software shouldn't be copyrightable at all. Source code, yes. Copyright to your heart's content, but not executable binaries and most certainly not encrypted data. By having binary executables copyrighted, the work is most certainly lost in the future and will never enter public domain the agreement of copyright is supposed to guarantee. As for binary encoded "art" that's fine so long as the format is open and documented. Binary encoded art can be many things including data for game engines to reference such as maps and models as well as images, video and sound. But statistical data should never be copyrightable and so far, I believe the courts have consistently ruled positively to that notion.

  3. Re:Didn't this happen not too long ago.. by e9th · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sydney, Australia.

  4. They're doing it wrong by pluther · · Score: 3, Informative
    For an example of how to do it right, take a look at my local transit system, TriMet.

    They publish their data in well-defined formats, including real-time location information for all buses and trains, free for anybody to use.

    Anyone is free to write their own applications using their data. TriMet maintains links to many of them on their web site.

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  5. Re:I thought this was old news... by langelgjm · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not just precedent - maps were explicitly included in the original Copyright Act of 1790.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  6. Re:Didn't this happen not too long ago.. by wstrucke · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think the problem that they have, is a loss of control over the information.

    If something goes wrong, intentional or otherwise, and the schedule that all these people look at through the phone is incorrect... who's gonna get the angry customer call? The train company.

    That's the first thing I've read here that actually makes any sense as to why the MTA would be doing this, though I adamantly disagree. As was previously stated, this is the city transit authority -- by definition a public entity. They have no business doing anything with copyright, nevermind suing a tax payer for using the information!

    This is almost as bad as the news that the tax payer "bailed out" banks are raking in record profits by increasing overdraft and other fees -- talk about biting the hand that feeds you...