Caddy-321 wrote: What has this to to with Copyright? It opens another Browser-Window with GoogleMaps or something else. The same as i open the window manually. I think i de-install the toolbox. Or better - quit the editing of waze-maps completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributo ... _liability

qwaletee wrote: You may not realize it, but you said what I said.

The main difference is I pointed out that it is a at most an extra point in a larger defense, it won't stand at all on its own. There's a ton of case law going back, I think, to Prodigy (anyone remember that?) about whether a web site owner that publishes user-generated content is considered the publisher of that information. Waze is of course the owner of the data, in this case, even though it is user-generated, because they insist to the end user (us) that they own (our) work.product.

So their real defense is going to be that they told us that they do not permit use of the site to perform IP-infringing activities. All this does is add a cherry on top of that sundae - we said it, and where we found a potential tool to help violators, we tried our best to eliminate it. That shows a little more good faith. The bigger good faith is examples of their proactively taking down infringing content, which I don't know if that has ever happened (the case in what was it, Chile? was not really proactive, as they were informed that they has already infringed; while not proactive, they at least were very responsive and erring on the side of caution in removing the offending material... even though they didnt have a good way to not err on the side of caution!).

The Prodigy case wasn't about copyright, it was about defamation – and it was overruled by Congress shortly thereafter via the Communications Decency Act, which gave ISPs immunity from being considered the "publisher" of speech.

It's still very much possible for an Internet service provider to be held liable for copyright infringement by its users – the Napster and Grokster cases make that quite clear. There are two schemes for secondary liability of a service provider: contributory infringement and vicarious infringement. Contributory infringement requires knowledge of the users' infringement and a material contribution to it; vicarious infringement requires a financial benefit from the infringement and the ability to supervise and control user conduct.

Of course, both require an underlying act of direct infringement by the user – and in the United States, factual data contained in maps is not copyrightable. The same is not true in many other countries, however. And if we're operating in one of those countries, well, Waze gets a financial benefit from the copying (their maps work, so people use the app, so Waze gets more ad revenue), and Waze certainly has the right and ability to control user conduct, so a case for vicarious infringement against Waze (if there is direct infringement by the user) is entirely possible.

So, to keep its maps and to avoid lawsuit, Waze essentially has a responsibility to exercise its right and ability to control its userbase. Not that the criteria for secondary liability for copyright infringement are the same in every single country, but it is more than feasible that the criteria are similar in many, many places. It's not worth the risk.

IANAL, but I will be...

mdavidsonjr wrote:How about the google map maker link so that we can fix issues on there map like we do. This was helping them out a lot for fixes to the map and a lot of us have worked hard to correct some of there issues and add to there map. Will this come back.

+1000 to this. Since Waze currently uses Google Maps as its primary source for address/POI location information, if we don't have an easy way to get to where we're working in Waze within GMM, the map markers simply won't get moved, and Waze will continue to route people to the wrong location - and when that happens enough, Waze will lose users since face it, who needs a navigation app that sends you to the wrong spot?

And on a side note - this was removed at the request of WAZE STAFF? Seriously???? People who are NOT busting their butts for free to help *them* have a better map application? So they don't use it and now don't want us using a useful tool that makes our lives easier for confirming information on the map?

I think that it really SUCKS that the maintainer/author of this addon just went ahead and said "ok" and took out an increadably useful part of the toolbox just because a bunch of people who don't actively edit their map and deal with driver reports wanted it removed for whatever reason. Screw that.

PLEASE put the ability to link to those other map sources back in. I thought the addons were tools FOR the volunteer map editors written by those same people. If that's the case, then they need to have the features that we need/want, and as long is it's not something which is actually having a negative impact on the Waze map or WME itself, then the priority should be on helping out the volunteer, for-free, editors - not catering to some half-baked request from the people who are making money off of this.

(Note, I have no problem with them making money - but I patently dislike it when they who are making money make a request/decision that makes things more difficult for people who are working for fee on it for no good reason.)

Edit: I just read PesachZ's comments regarding "copying" concerns. IMO, FWIW, when there's a button on the screen that says "copy this map area data from {source}," then a case could be made for them facilitating copying of copyrighted data. When the link simply points you to the same area (something you can already do, but not nearly so conveniently) in another map, that's not copying or facilitating it. You can't even "copy-and-paste" from one map tab to another, so there's no copying going on. Being able to look and confirm a street name - something which is PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, is not copyright infringement. Waze is being way too paranoid here, as far as I'm concerned. Cautious is good, certainly. Paranoid, not so much.

Edit #2: Man, I'm just full of edits today...

It occurs to me that I kinda forgot an old adage that I usually like to follow: Don't post on a subject you're upset about while you're still at the "WTF??" phase of being upset over it; it leads you to sometimes say things that you later realize you didn't quite mean (at least in the way you posted at the time).

I realize that Oyyodams isn't in the best position regarding this, and he's really not to blame. So I'd like to apologize to him for the parts I directed at him. I know it's not his call and he probably feels obligated to follow those types of requests from the owner of this product.

That said, I really do hope that at some point the GM and GMM links can be added back at some point; given Waze's relationship with Google, I honestly just don't see a reason for those links to not be restored at some point.

So why no Google Maps link at least?

Google OWNS Waze.

Waze already uses satellite imagery from Google.

Waze uses Google Maps as its primary source for address/POI location information data.

Waze has a built-in Street View function, which shows you stuff from SV from, well.. GOOGLE.

How is a link button to bring up Google Maps view in another tab violating anything WRT Google Maps?

jasonh300 wrote:This is the very reason for those other sources being disallowed. Looking at Google Maps to get the name of the street could be construed as a copyright violation.

You're aware that street names are a matter of public record, right?

PesachZ wrote:

SuperDave1426 wrote: You're aware that street names are a matter of public record, right?

A link to that public record can be incorporated into Waze, in fact waze has said it would appreciate being given those links. But copying out of a copyrighted database, who did the work of searching the public and displaying it nicely, may be different. Also keep in mind, not all street/venue names as displayed in Google Maps are written exactly as they appear in public record.

While they can copyright the presentation of that public information, they cannot copyright the public information itself. If they could, nobody would ever be able to record a new presentation of any of Bach's symphonies as long as there's a current recording of it that's copyrighted.

In the above example, I could take the exact same sheet music that was used for one recording, throw together an orchestra, have them play it while I record it, and sell the new recording without ever violating the rights of the first recording company. I can't, however, copy a CD of the other recording and run around selling it - that would be a violation of their copyright.

The point being that copyrighting the presentation of a public work is the same, regardless of the medium.

Doing a visual check (with your eyes) to confirm a publicly-available street name and then making a change elsewhere manually isn't the same thing as an actual copy would be.

HavanaDay wrote:While I agree with the sentiments posted recently above. I used the google map maker link for quick referencing when I actually did want to make a change to the google map. With that gone I am less likely inclined to do so. To translate that in to plain english I will not be fixing Google Map problems any more but referring said errors by reporters to fix it themselves.

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee1/ ... hssign.gif With the removal of a tool that makes it easier to submit corrections to GMM (which in turn benefits Waze), I'm also no longer inclined to do so, and will simply tell reporters to do it themselves.

PesachZ wrote:You are correct, however if their version of the street name, place name, etc. is slightly different than the public record, and you copy it into Waze, you have now copied protected data which is not in the public record. The only way to be certain what you are copying is public, is to look for it in the public record, not in a protected source.

I think you're seriously over-thinking it. When was the last time you heard of a copyright claim along the lines of, "Oh, we made a typo on that name and then you have it now with the same misspelling so it must have come from us and by the way the misspelled name is copyrighted by us so now we're going to sue you?"

And even if such a thing were plausible, I seriously doubt that Google would sue its own company....

Perhaps Oyyo can add the buttons, back but only with not copyrighted sources i.e. livemap, beta editor, non-copyrighted public record sites or government GIS.

Are you trying to kill Oyyo? Have you actually looked at government GIS sources? There's no central repository that could be easily linked to from a button on the toolbar. Individual State/county/city assessor offices, with different formats and availability. Some have "live" GIS maps that you can navigate around, a'la GM. Some have PDF files you can download, which may or may not contain street address information. Some don't make anything available for access online - you get to come in and purchase sheets that they copy off for you.

Yea, good luck with that....

CBenson wrote:

SuperDave1426 wrote:While they can copyright the presentation of that public information, they cannot copyright the public information itself. If they could, nobody would ever be able to record a new presentation of any of Bach's symphonies as long as there's a current recording of it that's copyrighted.

No that's not correct. What allows the second recording is that copyright infringement requires copying. So if you have never heard a prior recording to the Bach symphony and you then record it, you cannot be copying the prior recording.

I call Straw Man. If you've heard a performance and decided to do one of your own, of a work like that, it doesn't infringe on anything because the song itself is public domain - only the particular performance by that particular orchestra is copyrighted. If what you were saying was right, nobody would ever be able to reproduce one of those performances because odds are that anyone who listens to that music is going to have heard the song, even if they don't know what orchestra performed it.

SuperDave1426 wrote:Doing a visual check (with your eyes) to confirm a publicly-available street name and then making a change elsewhere manually isn't the same thing as an actual copy would be.

What makes you so sure? If you do that from a protected data compilation in a jurisdiction with a broad sweat of the brow doctrine why would it not be a violation.

What, the doctrine that the USA rejected years ago (and thus doesn't enforce) and that Israel (which I believe is where Waze is located, if I recall correctly) has all but rejected it (requiring that a work exhibit some degree of originality in order to be copyrightable)? That doctrine?

(Heck, even the link you provided points out those facts. <grin> Every other country listed in that article also seems to indicate that they all more-or-less don't hold to it, to one degree or another.)

CBenson wrote:

SuperDave1426 wrote: When was the last time you heard of a copyright claim along the lines of, "Oh, we made a typo on that name and then you have it now with the same misspelling so it must have come from us and by the way the misspelled name is copyrighted by us so now we're going to sue you?"

See the case referenced here (although they did lose). The case however does reinforce point one above.

When a case like that is lost, it usually sets a precedent that can affect any future cases.

SuperDave1426 wrote:And even if such a thing were plausible, I seriously doubt that Google would sue its own company....

This is likely not about what Google does with data it has gathered, but rather what Google is doing with data it has licensed from others. Thus if the license agreement prohibits Google from creating another database with the the data in a subsidiary, then some third party data provider may well still sue Google/Waze if Google/Waze is facilitating copying the data from Google maps to the Waze database.

Then they should be really concerned, if that's the case. Didn't Waze do the initial basemap import from them? Or did they get it from some other (presumably public) source?