MTA to iPod users: Get lost!
posted Sep 26th 2005 9:31AM
You'd think the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and San Francisco's Bay
Area Rapid Transit would have a vested interest in helping commuters navigate their systems. But, apparently both
agencies have a higher goal: protecting revenue streams. After web designer William Bright put an iPod-formatted New
York subway map up on his site, he received a cease-and-desist letter from
the MTA's legal department, warning him that the material was copyrighted. He received a similar letter from the San
Francisco agency, which noted, "there is a widespread belief that materials published by public agencies such as BART
are in the public domain. This belief is incorrect." While BART claims the noble goal of trying to avoid the
dissemination of inaccurate info (odd, since Bright's info came straight from the BART site), the MTA makes no secret
of its efforts to make money by trademarking its symbols and cracking down on violators. (Good thing the policy wasn't
in effect when Duke Ellington was around.) In the meantime, Bright has designed new versions of the maps, and has
already posted the San Francisco version.
But you know, NYC MTA does not make money on the subway maps - if you ask for a map, you get it for free.
I wonder what they will do to programs such as Metro from http://nanika.net/Metro? I use Metro
on my PPC when I go to DC and it is wonderful. I can even type in like Air and Space Museum and a nearby subway stop and be able to get routing info . Best part is I don't have to carry paper maps and what not. WHY would Bart want to restrict this? Would this not make it EASIER to give them money??
Makes sense. It's their info - why should they let someone else make money giving it away? (Did you notice their site is ad-driven?)
Aren't you guys based in NYC?
It's Metropolitan Trasportation Authority.
Pretty lame. I keep a map of the NYC subway system on the SD card of my Treo for trips to New York. It's been pretty useful at times, and I'm hard-pressed to think of how it's cost the MTA any revenue.
It's probably more along the lines of what poster 3 said. They're probably trying to prevent someone from making money on their copyrighted information. Part of owning a copyright is enforcing it; if you knowingly let someone use your copyright without permission, you lose the copyright. It's similar to the Linux copyright debacle in Australia recently.
i think MTA stands for metropolitan transportation authority.
d'oh! i was beaten to the punch.
Hey Jesse,
Atleast you spelled it right. LOL
I was going to say the same thing. I guess we were both beaten to the punch.
Forget NYC, someone needs to do this for Tokyo's subway system.
I think BART should just stick to making the bus service safe rather than making a mess out a good thing..
djsyndrom,
the site has maps for the tokyo subway.
Whew! I can't tell you how GLAD I am to know that a portion of my MTA fare has helped crush the illegal distribution of these maps. Way to go MTA. Take tax dollars to keep running, but crush someone offering a very useful tool because your lawyers have nothing better to do. Why not focus on keeping trains running, fares down, and books legit:
http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/032Spring/08mta.html
That's right. You hid money in order to jack up fares.
I'm surprised they didn't invoke the almighty DMCA.
"I'm surprised they didn't invoke the almighty DMCA."
That would only happen if he lifted the info from the MTA website and charged 1,000's of his closest friends to download it. Oh, wait a minute...
The MTA provides a downloadable vector PDF of their subway maps. I don't understand why they would care if someone wanted to have it downloadable in a different format on a different site for free. It's not like Bright is selling shirts of the maps. hey shirts!
zao:"I think BART should just stick to making the bus service safe rather than making a mess out a good thing.. "
I'm sure if BART ran buses, it would try to do just that. MUNI runs the buses in SFC, and I think ACTRANS does in the EastBay. I'd LOVE to see a MUNI train/bus schedule like this. I'd even pay 5 bucks for it.
As a former resident of NYC I first must come clean to the MTA and let them know I used at least 3 different (and life saving) programs on my PPC to navigate that maze till I got my feet under me. I'm sorry. I'll never do it again. No really.
On the map/ipod/copyright thing, I do remember a number of times where the MTA would allow certain banks and other institutions hawking their services via promotional "cards" with the map of the subway system on the back or folded into a pocket-sized piece. My guess is the MTA made money on the license of the map and is probably seeking something of this nature in the future. That said...give me a break...
Umm... There must have been some other reason for their prosectution of the person as you can get a free subway map online (@mta.info) in PDF format, and you can get a free physical copy in the stations.
#6, Andrew, said: "Part of owning a copyright is enforcing it; if you knowingly let someone use your copyright without permission, you lose the copyright. It's similar to the Linux copyright debacle in Australia recently."
That is, unfortunately, totally incorrect. You're thinking of trademark, not copyright. Once everybody starts saying, and writing, "Hoover" when they mean vacuum cleaner, and you don't do anything about it, the legal system accepts that the word is generic and refers to all products, not just yours.
With copyright, you _might_ be able to attempt to use some legal doctrines to claim that, say, everybody else copied it, and you saw them doing it, so you had a good-faith belief that it wasn't copyrighted. Some similar arguments could be made. However, the mere fact that you haven't enforced a copyright doesn't result in its loss.
The fight in Australia was also about trademark rather than copyright.
#3, Jon, said, "Makes sense. It's their info - why should they let someone else make money giving it away."
Information - facts - can't be copyrighted, and rightly so. The location of the stops is a fact of the physical world, not a creative work. The design and layout of a map can definitely be copyrighted. I've seen what the London Underground maps looked like over the years, and it's clear that they put a lot of effort into a clear, legible map. However, the actual _information_ in the map isn't copyrightable.
"...the MTA makes no secret of its efforts to make money by trademarking its symbols and cracking down on violators. (Good thing the policy wasnt in effect when Duke Ellington was around.)"
Nice, I wasn't expecting a "Take the A Train" reference :-)
BART is NOT a "San Francisco agency." They serve the San Francisco Bay Area with offices based in Oakland.
Odd in article where you sarcastically deirde others for "trying to avoid the dissemination of inaccurate info," you mess up the name of the MTA and the location of BART.
Perhaps BART and the MTA should also send Engadget a Cease and desist until they get the facts straight.
on another note, it's billy strayhorn who wrote "take the a train," not the duke... sorry for my dorkiness, but i had to say it.
It would be nice of the MTA to make other digital versions of their maps. Maybe formatted for Palms, PPCs, cell phones etc. You know, for devices ACTUALLY carried on the train. I love the downloadable map, but who the hell is going to whip out a laptop on the train to view a PDF file? Maybe they wouldn't have to hand out so many free maps if you could download one into your iPod.
They should fuck off considering taxes paid for it all...
" I love the downloadable map, but who the hell is going to whip out a laptop on the train to view a PDF file? "
and
"Maybe formatted for Palms, PPCs, cell phones etc. You know, for devices ACTUALLY carried on the train. "
Well how 'bout this?
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readerforppc.html
All I have to say is... WTF?
I don't know about the Pocket PC version of Acrobat, but the Palm version is an abomination.