But I ask if it is valid for OSM or not, I know SCO vs * was extreme, but that doesn't mean it is valid for us. Can you point on some similarities in evidence, cercumstances, factors that can make this a valid case? If not it is the same as Larry Flynt vs America or most lawsuits.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:19 AM, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Please reread what I wrote, the sco v world was an exame of how far a > frivoulus lawsuit can go > > On 06/01/2010, Aun Johnsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> groklaw.net - I subscribed to their newletter during the hottest part >> of the lawsuit. Wasn't just SCO vs Linux, was more SCO vs Linux vs IBM >> vs everybody else. And where did everything start? In a piece of >> source code if I remember right. Something in the Linux kernel >> supposedly came from a piece of copyrighted code bought by SCO from >> IBM. >> >> So if that applies here, the street names somebody copies from Google >> can become the property of xxxx and xxxx opens lawsuite against OSM >> for stealing their work? I believe SCO had some form of evidence other >> than "word on the street", don't know if such claims about street >> names can be proved in the same way though. >> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:25 AM, John Smith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Friverlous lawsuits can and have been used to bankrupt competition and >>> you only have to look at sco v linux to see how far they can go >>> >>> On 06/01/2010, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> 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 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
