2009/10/7 Anthony Cartmell <[email protected]>: > > It's a problem of where to draw the boundary, as I see it.
Quite. Its all about substantiality. > > Locating one point is probably not copying the map. Never. > Locating a series of twenty points that happen to follow the route of a > road that's marked on the map might be, even though the copy clearly isn't > a "map". It would be the beginnings of copying the map (its a part of the map) but would probably not be substantial but that would depend on many things. > Locating thousands of points, that are ordered and stored so that they > describe all the roads on the map, probably is copying the map. There's no probably about it. It is copying the map. But of course I was suggesting no such thing, rather I was talking about using the map to locate points not marked on the map. That cannot be copying (on any analysis) it could only be the making an adaptation. My view is that it is not and I've not seen any suggestion that I am wrong on that point (but I could easily be... I haven't researched it in detail). > > Is there another angle? Perhaps instead of looking at the idea of > "copying" we need to look at the idea of depriving the map owner of > potential revenue? Well, we don't have a notion of copyright (or database right) that works like that. There are some kinds of IP where you can (sometimes) obtain licences of right and they are sometimes based on revenue, but most IP works on the principle that its owner can sit on it and prevent anyone using it even if to do so would cause them no loss. -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
