On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Ulf Lamping <[email protected]>wrote:
> Am 05.01.2010 15:17, schrieb Anthony: > > I certainly don't suggest blatantly breaking the law. What I suggest is > > not acting as though there is a law when you have no evidence that there > is. > > > > So far no one has shown me the law that is supposedly being broken. One > > brief attempt pointed to EU database law, which 1) hasn't been shown to > > apply in Australia; and 2) hasn't been shown to apply to all instances > > of copying anyway. > > So we'll end up with a map only being legally usable in Australia. What makes you think that? > Fine for you, but not a goal that I have. > Nor a goal I have, since I don't live in Australia. > What we're left with is some sort of vague "Pascal's Wager" type > > admonishment - "I have absolutely no evidence for my claims, but you > > have to follow what I say anyway because not doing so would be > > infinitely bad." I don't buy that crap. > > So unless a mapper was drawn to bancrupt at court, you still won't agree > that there might be a problem. > What makes you think that? On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:15 PM, John Smith <[email protected]>wrote: > 2010/1/6 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > Really? Where? What laws are being suggested to be broken? > > Not familiar with frivilous lawsuits? > Just don't see that applicability. > I certainly don't suggest blatantly breaking the law. What I suggest is > not > > acting as though there is a law when you have no evidence that there is. > > Not only is there copyright law, in the case of Google and other > online services there is also contract law. > Yes, there is also contract law which no one has shown to apply. By the way, in any EU states, any contractual provision which attempts to "prevent a lawful user of the database from extracting and/or re-utilizing insubstantial parts of its contents, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, for any purposes whatsoever" "is null and void". I don't know if Australia has such a provision, though. > > So far no one has shown me the law that is supposedly being broken. One > > brief attempt pointed to EU database law, which 1) hasn't been shown to > > apply in Australia; and 2) hasn't been shown to apply to all instances of > > copying anyway. > > You mustn't have asked the right questions, see the Telstra ruling. > Seems to me there's a difference between copying an entire phone book and copying a few street names. I find it hard to believe that anyone who gives someone else directions after consulting with a map is committing a copyright violation.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
